Hi,
AFAIK the build hosts are RHEL5 (or maybe F10 by now?). At any rate the rpm used in rawhide is quite different than the ones from the hosts, how has this been solved in the build hosts? Has the hosting OS upgraded its rpm to be compatible to all hosted chroots? Or is the rpm within the chroot used?
I'm asking in a double context: First I'd like to understand if smart can properly handle chroots of rawhide/F11 on F10/RHEL5 hosts. Anders Björklund (in the Cc, please keep him there on replies) has put a great deal of effort to have smart working on F10 and F11, and a smart version for managing F11 and later chroots on F10 or earlier would be great.
And second I'd like to know how to setup a build environment for F11 for getting some ATrpms packages out.
Thanks!
On Sunday 22 March 2009 05:02:41 am Axel Thimm wrote:
Hi,
AFAIK the build hosts are RHEL5 (or maybe F10 by now?). At any rate the rpm used in rawhide is quite different than the ones from the hosts, how has this been solved in the build hosts? Has the hosting OS upgraded its rpm to be compatible to all hosted chroots? Or is the rpm within the chroot used?
I'm asking in a double context: First I'd like to understand if smart can properly handle chroots of rawhide/F11 on F10/RHEL5 hosts. Anders Björklund (in the Cc, please keep him there on replies) has put a great deal of effort to have smart working on F10 and F11, and a smart version for managing F11 and later chroots on F10 or earlier would be great.
And second I'd like to know how to setup a build environment for F11 for getting some ATrpms packages out.
we are running a version of rpm 4.6.0 on rhel5. This is only so mock can populate chroots with rpms with stronger hashes rhel5's rpm doesnt support. All srpm creation now takes place in chroots so features of the target rpm are always available.
rpm in F-10 updates is compatible with the new rpm features. but rpm from F-9 and RHEL4 and 5 can not handle the new rpm at all. you cannot make chroots on them with rawhide rpms.
you could use koji on F-10/rawhide or F-9/RHEL5 by replacing the hosts rpm to build your packages.
Dennis
Hi,
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:53:09AM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On Sunday 22 March 2009 05:02:41 am Axel Thimm wrote:
AFAIK the build hosts are RHEL5 (or maybe F10 by now?). At any rate the rpm used in rawhide is quite different than the ones from the hosts, how has this been solved in the build hosts? Has the hosting OS upgraded its rpm to be compatible to all hosted chroots? Or is the rpm within the chroot used?
I'm asking in a double context: First I'd like to understand if smart can properly handle chroots of rawhide/F11 on F10/RHEL5 hosts. Anders Björklund (in the Cc, please keep him there on replies) has put a great deal of effort to have smart working on F10 and F11, and a smart version for managing F11 and later chroots on F10 or earlier would be great.
And second I'd like to know how to setup a build environment for F11 for getting some ATrpms packages out.
we are running a version of rpm 4.6.0 on rhel5. This is only so mock can populate chroots with rpms with stronger hashes rhel5's rpm doesnt support. All srpm creation now takes place in chroots so features of the target rpm are always available.
rpm in F-10 updates is compatible with the new rpm features. but rpm from F-9 and RHEL4 and 5 can not handle the new rpm at all. you cannot make chroots on them with rawhide rpms.
you could use koji on F-10/rawhide or F-9/RHEL5 by replacing the hosts rpm to build your packages.
Thanks for the explanation, Dennis. Can I get these tailored rpm rpms from somewhere? I just tried rebuilding rpm from rawhide on RHEL5 and the dependencies look endless.
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm@atrpms.net wrote:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:53:09AM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
we are running a version of rpm 4.6.0 on rhel5. This is only so mock can populate chroots with rpms with stronger hashes rhel5's rpm doesnt support. All srpm creation now takes place in chroots so features of the target rpm are always available.
Thanks for the explanation, Dennis. Can I get these tailored rpm rpms from somewhere? I just tried rebuilding rpm from rawhide on RHEL5 and the dependencies look endless.
http://infrastructure.fedoraproject.org/
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 01:15:21PM -0500, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm@atrpms.net wrote:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:53:09AM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
we are running a version of rpm 4.6.0 on rhel5. This is only so mock can populate chroots with rpms with stronger hashes rhel5's rpm doesnt support. All srpm creation now takes place in chroots so features of the target rpm are always available.
Thanks for the explanation, Dennis. Can I get these tailored rpm rpms from somewhere? I just tried rebuilding rpm from rawhide on RHEL5 and the dependencies look endless.
Thanks, I guess it's http://infrastructure.fedoraproject.org/builder-rpms/
It's missing popt builds, but these were easy to rebuild from Fedora. I just metion it in case a) I'm pulling the wrong bits, b) someone else wants to use RHEL5 hosts with F11 roots.
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:14:24PM +0300, Axel Thimm wrote:
we are running a version of rpm 4.6.0 on rhel5. This is only so mock can populate chroots with rpms with stronger hashes rhel5's rpm doesnt support. All srpm creation now takes place in chroots so features of the target rpm are always available.
Thanks for the explanation, Dennis. Can I get these tailored rpm rpms from somewhere? I just tried rebuilding rpm from rawhide on RHEL5 and the dependencies look endless.
This worked for quite a while including Bill's update to rpm, but since the util-linux-ng update in F11 a couple of weeks ago yum/rpm on the RHEL5 host fails on util-linux-ng with
[...] Running Transaction error: util-linux-ng-2.14.2-11.fc11: Header V3 RSA/SHA256 signature: BAD, key ID d22e77f2 Warning: scriptlet or other non-fatal errors occurred during transaction. [...]
Other packages (even built later than util-linux-ng-2.14.2-11.fc11) install fine, the keys are installed, and I even tried with --nogpgcheck.
Shouldn't --nogpgcheck avoid the test in the first place, and why does it fail (only) on util-linux-ng?
infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Axel Thimm -
Dennis Gilmore -
Jeffrey Ollie