-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Sorry for the format of the posts today, forced to use stupid
webmail which is slow and ugly.
>
> How about the old unix everything is a file concept? We could just have
a --status_file parameter that could take a file or a n
.
--
Michael
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Dan Williams
Sent: Tue 6/27/2006 9:12 AM
To: Discussion of Fedora build system
Subject: RE: New version of mock working (I think)
On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 16:19 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > -Original M
h I think is probably illegal, anyways)
--
Michael
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Clark Williams
Sent: Tue 6/27/2006 1:20 PM
To: Discussion of Fedora build system
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: New version of mock working (I think)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESS
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Williams wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 11:15 -0500, Clark Williams wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Mike McLean wrote:
>>> Clark Williams wrote:
Not smart enough to argue that we should wait for our build
sys
On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 11:15 -0500, Clark Williams wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Mike McLean wrote:
> > Clark Williams wrote:
> >> Not smart enough to argue that we should wait for our build system
> >> clients to weigh in. Sigh...
> >>
> >> Dan/Jeremy/Mike/Andreas/et
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike McLean wrote:
> Clark Williams wrote:
>> Not smart enough to argue that we should wait for our build system
>> clients to weigh in. Sigh...
>>
>> Dan/Jeremy/Mike/Andreas/et al
>>
>> How are you going to use file locking? Do you just want mock to l
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
seth vidal wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 10:13 -0500, Clark Williams wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Jeremy Katz wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 10:12 -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
I hate to throw water on the fire,
On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 10:13 -0500, Clark Williams wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Jeremy Katz wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 10:12 -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
> >> I hate to throw water on the fire, but to me XML-RPC seems like a
> >> sledgehammer. There's actually a
Clark Williams wrote:
Not smart enough to argue that we should wait for our build system
clients to weigh in. Sigh...
Dan/Jeremy/Mike/Andreas/et al
How are you going to use file locking? Do you just want mock to lock
the status file when we're changing state, or is there something else
I'm miss
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jun 2006, Clark Williams wrote:
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Jeremy Katz wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 10:12 -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
I hate to throw water on the fire, but
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006, Clark Williams wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Jeremy Katz wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 10:12 -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
> >> I hate to throw water on the fire, but to me XML-RPC seems like a
> >> sledgehammer. There's actually a ton of code
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jeremy Katz wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 10:12 -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
>> I hate to throw water on the fire, but to me XML-RPC seems like a
>> sledgehammer. There's actually a ton of code in xmlrpclib.py and for
>> this specific instance of pushi
On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 10:12 -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
> I hate to throw water on the fire, but to me XML-RPC seems like a
> sledgehammer. There's actually a ton of code in xmlrpclib.py and for
> this specific instance of pushing status information back to a
> controlling process, I think it's som
stem
> > Subject: Re: New version of mock working (I think)
> >
> > Ok, I can go with that. Probably the most convincing portion
> > of the above argument is the idea of implementing a
> > root-privilege server as opposed to pushing that back to the
> > build s
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006, Mike McLean wrote:
> I'd almost rather handle this with a standard format state file (say
> xml) and file locking.
+1
Communication between plague-builder and mock is local. They are both
running on the same machine.
Using XMLRPC sounds to me as if some people here are suf
On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 17:07 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> One of the signs of project maturity and good leadership is knowing
> when
> to say 'No', and not be afraid to point potential users to better
> alternativest to solve their problem. At this point, your request is
> right on the border,
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 15:55 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
1. in brew
Brew likes this because brew is already an xml-rpc server.
Actually no. Brew's use of xmlrpc does not imply that this particular
suggestion will be easy to integrate with Brew. We'd want to be pushing
dat
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Jesse Keating
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 3:10 PM
> To: fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com
> Subject: RE: New version of mock working (I think)
>
> On Mon, 2006-0
d system
>> Subject: Re: New version of mock working (I think)
>>
>> Ok, I can go with that. Probably the most convincing portion
>> of the above argument is the idea of implementing a
>> root-privilege server as opposed to pushing that back to the
>> build syste
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Clark Williams
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 4:22 PM
> To: Discussion of Fedora build system
> Subject: Re: New version of mock working (I think)
>
> If we presupp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Williams wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 13:40 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Any chance we could get a better defined method of mock<->plague
>> communication? Parsing output is bound to be fragile and hard to
>> maintain.
>
> Yup. Quite right
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Clark Williams
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 4:07 PM
> To: Discussion of Fedora build system
> Subject: Re: New version of mock working (I think)
>
> Ok, I can go w
of Fedora build system
>> Subject: Re: New version of mock working (I think)
>>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> Yes, feedback from Dan would be good. My initial thoughts
>> are that a
>>>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Clark Williams
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 3:07 PM
> To: Discussion of Fedora build system
> Subject: Re: New version of mock working (I think)
>
> -BEGIN PGP
On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 15:02 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> For security implications, there is a push to make mock 'safe to run by
> semi- or non-trusted users'. The chroot option is not ever going to be
> safe, from what I can tell, so we might have to make a two-level scheme,
> or a privleged
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Yes, feedback from Dan would be good. My initial thoughts are that a
> client implementation would be best at this point, due to the security
> implications of a server. Something where we call a server API provided
> by pl
On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 15:02 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> > Jesse Keating
> > Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 2:59 PM
> > To: fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com
On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 14:57 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I don't know what brew is. Link?
Brew is the Red Hat buildsystem that replaces Beehive. Work on brew
started at last years summit, before Extras was really off the ground,
and before plague had seen the light of day. Brew does a lot o
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Jesse Keating
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 2:59 PM
> To: fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com
> Subject: Re: New version of mock working (I think)
>
> In Red Hat land we us
> > 2. We need to hear from Dan as to whether the likes the
> idea. My guess
> > is he will since plague already has XML-RPC elements.
Yes, feedback from Dan would be good. My initial thoughts are that a
client implementation would be best at this point, due to the security
implications of a s
On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 15:55 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> Just for 2cents, I'd like to make sure we don't forget the other use
> cases of mock:
>
> 1. in brew
> 2. standalone with just a person in front of a terminal
I suppose I should add a #3 here.
In Red Hat land we use mock to run commands in
On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 15:55 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> Good points about other uses. I'll comment on how this particular issue
> effects these uses:
>
> On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 15:55 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> > 1. in brew
>
> Brew likes this because brew is already an xml-rpc server.
>
> > 2.
Good points about other uses. I'll comment on how this particular issue
effects these uses:
On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 15:55 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> 1. in brew
Brew likes this because brew is already an xml-rpc server.
> 2. standalone with just a person in front of a terminal
I would think that
On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 14:45 -0500, Clark Williams wrote:
> I can see I'm on the losing end of this argument. My first suggestion
> would have been to use mmap to map the status file, but re-reading
> Dan's email, my guess is that's not significantly different from
> reading the file. And on the p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Ugh. I get the feeling that this is a case of "Oooo shiny!".
>>
>> What benefit is it to mock to add either client or server RPC
>> capabilities so that someone can determine mock's state? Are
>> we talking about communic
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Clark Williams wrote:
> Enrico Scholz wrote:
>>> Why write complicated code, when same thing can be done
>>> shorter, faster and less error-prone?
>>>
>>>
> Hoist on my own petard. When it comes down to it, I'm all about
> less code. I'll go rework moc
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Clark Williams
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 1:52 PM
> To: Discussion of Fedora build system
> Subject: Re: New version of mock working (I think)
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNE
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Does it really have to be a server? Could it be a push
>> rather than a poll? Mock could make xml-rpc calls to
>> whatever wraps around it.
>
> Just catching up on weekend traffic here. XMLRPC is a great idea. I have
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Jesse Keating
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 11:17 AM
> To: fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com
> Subject: Re: New version of mock working (I think)
>
> On Mon, 2006-
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Jesse Keating
> Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 4:48 PM
> To: fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com
> Subject: Re: New version of mock working (I think)
>
> On Sat, 2006-
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006, Clark Williams wrote:
> Well, I actually have builders running RHEL3, so I'll try not to do
> anything that breaks that. :)
They do work? Interesting.
During some testing of plague at the end of last year I decided to ditch
the RHEL3 builders as they were too problematic.
r
On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 11:10 -0500, Clark Williams wrote:
>
> Well, I actually have builders running RHEL3, so I'll try not to do
> anything that breaks that. :)
>
That's what branching the tree is for no? We don't want to stifle
advancements in mock because it has to continue to run on RHEL3.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andreas Thienemann wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2006, Jesse Keating wrote:
>
>> What about using dbus? Its not "simple" per se, but should scale pretty
>> well and allow for pretty good interaction.
> Please don't.
>
> As Seth correctly stated, there are
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006, Jesse Keating wrote:
> What about using dbus? Its not "simple" per se, but should scale pretty
> well and allow for pretty good interaction.
Please don't.
As Seth correctly stated, there are people using RHEL4 as the buildserver.
We do.
As far as I understood dbus, I nee
On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 11:33 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 09:42 -0500, Clark Williams wrote:
> > I've used XML-RPC to implement services a couple of times now. Both
> > times it's been python to python, with a python client talking to a
> > python server running under mod_pyth
On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 09:42 -0500, Clark Williams wrote:
> I've used XML-RPC to implement services a couple of times now. Both
> times it's been python to python, with a python client talking to a
> python server running under mod_python in Apache. I'm not sure how
> you would implement XML-RPC in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-06-24 at 15:57 -0500, Clark Williams wrote:
>> Hmm, that would mean that mock would have to be an XML-RPC server. I
>> like XML-RPC, but that might be a bit more complicated than is
>> strictly needed.
>
> Does it r
On Sat, 2006-06-24 at 15:57 -0500, Clark Williams wrote:
>
> Hmm, that would mean that mock would have to be an XML-RPC server. I
> like XML-RPC, but that might be a bit more complicated than is
> strictly needed.
Does it really have to be a server? Could it be a push rather than a
poll? Mock
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-06-24 at 11:26 -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
>> I'd rather not read the status file either. Any ideas that don't suck
>> would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Wild/Crazy idea:
>
> Why not use xml-rpc calls between the two?
On Sat, 2006-06-24 at 11:26 -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
>
> I'd rather not read the status file either. Any ideas that don't suck
> would be greatly appreciated.
Wild/Crazy idea:
Why not use xml-rpc calls between the two? If mock sent out status
information via xml-rpc, any other wrapper aroun
ms
> > Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 10:44 AM
> > To: Discussion of Fedora build system
> > Subject: Re: New version of mock working (I think)
> >
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Dan Williams wrote:
> > >
> > &
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Enrico Scholz wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Clark Williams) writes:
>
if os.path.exists(self.basedir): cmd = '%s -rf %s' %
(self.config['rm'], self.basedir)
>>> wouldn't it be better to do such things with native syscalls
>>> instead of invokin
Friday, June 23, 2006 10:44 AM
> To: Discussion of Fedora build system
> Subject: Re: New version of mock working (I think)
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Dan Williams wrote:
> >
> >> Can we do just one-word state strings? Plague tr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Clark Williams) writes:
>>> if os.path.exists(self.basedir):
>>> cmd = '%s -rf %s' % (self.config['rm'], self.basedir)
>>
>> wouldn't it be better to do such things with native syscalls instead of
>> invoking a command? You will never get this implemented r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Williams wrote:
>
>> Can we do just one-word state strings? Plague tries to parse
> these from
>> the 'mock-state' file to figure out what stages mock is in
>> (mainly for when it's creating the chroot and when it's actually
>> building).
>
>> Tha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Enrico Scholz wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Clark Williams) writes:
>
>> if os.path.exists(self.basedir):
>> cmd = '%s -rf %s' % (self.config['rm'], self.basedir)
>
> wouldn't it be better to do such things with native syscalls inst
On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 14:39 -0500, Clark Williams wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Oliver Falk wrote:
> > Hi Clark!
> >
> >
>
> Hi back Oliver!
>
> >
> > Thx for letting us know about your progress, Clark!
> >
> > Best would be you send a patch/diff to the list - firs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Clark Williams) writes:
> if os.path.exists(self.basedir):
> cmd = '%s -rf %s' % (self.config['rm'], self.basedir)
wouldn't it be better to do such things with native syscalls instead of
invoking a command? You will never get this implemented race-free wit
Clark Williams wrote:
Thx for letting us know about your progress, Clark!
Best would be you send a patch/diff to the list - first of all, so
all can investigate... At least I would appreciate!
Good point. Attached is a 'cvs diff" of my tree, plus the new source
file src/mock.c
Comments welco
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Oliver Falk wrote:
> Hi Clark!
>
>
Hi back Oliver!
>
> Thx for letting us know about your progress, Clark!
>
> Best would be you send a patch/diff to the list - first of all, so
> all can investigate... At least I would appreciate!
Good point. Atta
Hi Clark!
Clark Williams wrote:
[ ... ]
While none of the changes are massive, they are spread across a few
files (Makefile, mock.py, mock.spec, etc/default.cfg, src/Makefile,
src/mock.c) so I'm wondering if I should just blast out the files to
the list, or if I should cut a branch in CVS and le
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
All,
The inside-out version of mock (or upside-down, depending on your
perspective) seems to be working. For those that don't know what I'm
talking about, we've been looking at changing the way mock deals with
uid/gid manipulation to improve security
62 matches
Mail list logo
