mock buildroot definitions

[Clark Williams]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Thomas Vander Stichele wrote:

>On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 10:05 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
>
>>Hey,
>> So it was brought up a while ago that due to the changing nature of the
>>comps.xml format that we should not rely on it for the buildroot
>>installations in mock. The idea a while back was to just have a
>>'buildroot' rpm that required all the stuff that would normally be in
>>the comps.xml group. Then we could just install that rpm and it pulls in
>>the rest of the buildroot components.
>
>
>I think it's wrong to pollute the rpm collection with an rpm that only
>ever is useful for one specific program. In the past people have
>already objected to more generally useful umbrella packages, and those
>at least served an end user purpose.

I'm not sure I understand your objection.  I don't believe you'd see
these rpms in general circulation (I would guess they would be
delivered as a component of the mock package, right Seth?). The only
place they'd be installed is a chroot that is being managed by mock.  
The only purpose behind them would be to provide BuildDeps to tell rpm
what needs to be installed in the chroot.  If I understand the basic
idea, the RPM would be the only thing mock/yum/rpm would be told to
install, then the builddeps from the rpm would cause the chroot to be
populated.

>
>This probably won't come as a surprise, but I think that a build tool's
>idea of what it needs to pull in should be maintained in the build tool,
>and not outside of it. It's not like it's hard work :)

Why not just use a spec file as the format? While I know it's not a
nicely formed, easily parsed format, it's well known and familiar to
most of us. Yeah, I know that mock's "unit of operation" is a chroot
configuration (as opposed to yum's unit of operation: rpms), but I'd
rather not invent a new configuration file.  I like the idea of
centralizing the contents of a chroot configuration and a spec file
seems as easy as anything else.

One thing I like about the idea is that I could customize my chroot's
by modifying one of the supplied specfiles. The mock package could
manage two or three packages (buildsys-base, buildsys-max,
buildsys-min) and if I wanted something in between I could grab one,
change the name and modify the builddeps to my hearts content.

Just my $0.02 worth.

Clark

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEMorKHyuj/+TTEp0RAsBdAJ9qyIwKWLlGbunJzcth1ubSdWi0eACfdN40
OFL2lScwDxqYaTlNAS4MzQQ=
=YKjx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----