On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:09:14 -0500
Mike McLean mi...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/12/2009 01:40 AM, Florian La Roche wrote:
if you want to run the newest version of mock (0.9.19)
with RHEL5/CentOS5, you can use a backported version from:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:52:35 -0400
Jay Greguske jgreg...@redhat.com wrote:
Hello,
While trying to get livecd-creator working in a mock-built chroot, I
discovered that only directories could be bind-mounted using the
bind_mount plugin. I made
, and then mounting the
real loop device to it.
Thanks,
-jay
Clark Williams wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:52:35 -0400
Jay Greguske jgreg...@redhat.com wrote:
Hello,
While trying to get livecd-creator working in a mock-built
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 08:57:17 -0700
Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 10:37 -0500, Clark Williams wrote:
It's not described in the man page, so I'm a bit leery about depending
on that behavior. That being said, it's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael E Brown wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 11:11:33AM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 4, 2008 at 4:49 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All mock users,
The mock maintainers (Clark, Jesse, me) will upgrade mock in F7/F8 to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael E Brown wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 02:24:50PM -0500, Clark Williams wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael E Brown wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 11:11:33AM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 4
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael,
I was looking at BZ 233529 on mock and was wondering if the requested behavior
seems
valid (it does to me, just wanted a sanity check).
As far as I can tell, the only time the root cache is invalidated is when it
ages out
(was looking at
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael E Brown wrote:
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 09:58:35AM -0600, Clark Williams wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael,
I was looking at BZ 233529 on mock and was wondering if the requested
behavior seems
valid
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
I'm not sure what to make of this so I haven't yet filed a bug. But I
noticed that one of spot's jobs was taking way longer than it should:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=31678
and so I grabbed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul Howarth wrote:
mock now uses a login shell for the build phase, invoking bash as:
bash -l -c ...
It would be nice if this was changed to:
bash --login -c ...
(twi lines need changing in backend.py)
This is because the --login
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Doug Chapman wrote:
On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 01:19 -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
What mock is doing there is a little freaky. Since the functions you want
are in libc and you know it's always going to be there, you don't really
need to ask for the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:52:07 -0600
Clark Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Usage:
mock -r config --copyin foo bar baz /tmp
copies the files foo, bar and baz to the chroot /tmp directory for
config
mock -r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Better patch:
@@ -264,7 +264,7 @@ def main(retParams):
log_cfg = ConfigParser.ConfigParser()
logging.config.fileConfig(log_ini)
log_cfg.read(log_ini)
-except (IOError, OSError), e:
+
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
BJ Dierkes wrote:
1) more reliable mount/umount
several people have pointed out instances where mock exits leaving
mounts behind (specifically /dev), and the next invokation of mock
ends up 'rm -rf' the host machine's /dev. Bad
And
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
seth vidal wrote:
On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 12:40 -0500, Clark Williams wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Below is a patch for the $SUBJECT bz. I originally just changed the case of
the
search string to match what 'yum
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael E Brown wrote:
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 02:06:12PM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 13:00 -0500, Clark Williams wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
seth vidal wrote:
On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 12:40 -0500, Clark
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Prarit Bhargava wrote:
Clark Williams wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Prarit Bhargava wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 09:05:10 -0400
Prarit Bhargava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael/Jesse (and the buildsys list),
Jan Kratochvil has submitted a patch to mock that adds the 'orphanskill'
command to
mock-helper (a setuid root program used by mock). The patch traverses the /proc
directory, looking for tasks with a root link
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael E Brown wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 01:13:33PM -0400, Mike Bonnet wrote:
On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 11:53 -0500, Clark Williams wrote:
Jan Kratochvil has submitted a patch to mock that adds the 'orphanskill'
command to
mock-helper
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael E Brown wrote:
My currently posted git repo does exactly this:
-- adds 'chroot_setup_cmd' to every individual chroot config file
- install buildsys-build for legacy configs
- groupinstall buildsys-build for -devel
--
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Number Cruncher wrote:
I've been using mock to compile RPMs for everything from RH7.3 to FC4
and some SUSE distributions, but can't build for FC5 because my source
RPM requires the input of a licence key and and the mock environment gives:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Anthony Joseph Seward wrote:
On Sat, 2007-02-24 at 00:13 +, Karanbir Singh wrote:
Anthony Joseph Seward wrote:
On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 17:42 -0600, Connie Sieh wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, Anthony Joseph Seward wrote:
My situation is this: my
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
While working on a cross compilation project that uses mock to manage a
long-term chroot, I got quite annoyed that when mock throws an error due
to a failed command, I would have to go dig into the log files to find
what went wrong. It occurred to me
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jeff Sheltren wrote:
Thanks, Rex. I'm also happy with it on my mock 0.4 installs, and
haven't seen any ill effects :)
So, any objections to me committing the attached patch? It is simply
Karanbir's patch adapted for current CVS.
Thanks,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jeff Sheltren wrote:
Cool, thanks - it wasn't there when I did a checkout this morning ;)
Well, it *should* have been...
/me roots around in his mock HEAD sandbox...
GAH! there it sits, not committed.
In my defense, it's actually there in the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jeff Sheltren wrote:
On Sep 8, 2006, at 9:23 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
Jeff Sheltren wrote:
Was this a change to the filesystem or rpm RPM(s) or what?
basically, rpm issue ( feature ? ) lots of info here :
On Sun, 2006-09-03 at 16:32 -0500, Clark Williams wrote:
Jeremy Katz wrote:
Kind of an aside...
On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 13:38 -0500, Clark Williams wrote:
Well, because in 0.7 and greater, there is no mockhelper. The
/usr/bin/mock program is a setuid root launcher that
starts python
/usr/bin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jeremy Katz wrote:
Kind of an aside...
On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 13:38 -0500, Clark Williams wrote:
Well, because in 0.7 and greater, there is no mockhelper. The
/usr/bin/mock program is a setuid root launcher that starts python
/usr/bin/mock.py
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 13:38 -0500, Clark Williams wrote:
Well, because in 0.7 and greater, there is no mockhelper. The
/usr/bin/mock program is a setuid root launcher that starts python
/usr/bin/mock.py with whatever
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Weyl wrote:
On 8/16/06, Clark Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Keeping in line with our razor-blade focus for mock (we just build
packages in chroots), I actually don't think there's much more to do
for 1.0. Once we are comfortable
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 08:42 -0500, Clark Williams wrote:
What I haven't gotten my head around is what needs to be done for the
hypothetical install command. It may just be running yum with the
appropriate root arguments
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Williams wrote:
Is some process taking up all your CPU? Is that process part of the
build of your package?
Install and look at the output of the 'pstree' command; that will show
you exactly what mock has launched and the parent/child
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hans Ulrich Niedermann wrote:
Hi,
the question of a package of the mock SELinux policy from
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/MockTricks
has come up a few times in the past, and I have made an RPM package for
my own use some time ago:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Clark Williams
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 10:56 AM
To: Discussion of Fedora build system
Subject: Re: mock SELinux policy
: mock BZ#196930 questions/thoughts
On Wednesday 16 August 2006 11:59, Clark Williams wrote:
For number 3, I don't have a problem including the buildsys-build
specfile in the mock package for people to use, but I wondered if we
do, where should we put it? /usr/share/doc/mock? /etc/mock?
/var
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Do we need to add a disttag to the mock specfile?
My initial thought was no, since it's a noarch and pretty much should
run on any python = 2.2. But, I'm not positive that we shouldn't add
a disttag; just a nagging feeling. So I thought I'd throw it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Wednesday 16 August 2006 13:11, Clark Williams wrote:
Do we need to add a disttag to the mock specfile?
My initial thought was no, since it's a noarch and pretty much should
run on any python = 2.2. But, I'm not positive
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Wednesday 16 August 2006 13:50, Clark Williams wrote:
Gladly, but I have no idea where that repo is :). Should I just pull
the SRPM from an extras repo?
Sure you can do that... I've attached it here too.
Thanks
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Wednesday 16 August 2006 13:59, Clark Williams wrote:
Anyway, I'd be interested to hear what everyone thinks and I'd like to
learn what the mechanism is for implementing it. Is implementation
merely telling Jeremy or Jesse
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Wednesday 16 August 2006 14:30, Clark Williams wrote:
Keeping in line with our razor-blade focus for mock (we just build
packages in chroots), I actually don't think there's much more to do
for 1.0. Once we are comfortable
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Looks fine to me.
--
Michael
Ok, it's in.
Clark
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Thursday 10 August 2006 15:23, seth vidal wrote:
upstream mock IS fedora.
primary mock cvs is in /cvs/fedora
maybe we need an infrastructure/mock item?
The Fedora Project is upstream for mock yes, but the distribution
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Thursday 10 August 2006 15:41, Clark Williams wrote:
Wouldn't that be Michael and I?
There can be only one!
Well, not knowing what Michael looks like or how big he is, I'm not
going to sign up to take him on with a large
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am leaving for OLS 2006 and wont be able to do any review for the next
week.
I just caught up on the rpmlint discussion, and have a few concerns.
-- Security of installing just-built RPM
-- Can rpmlint just be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jeff Sheltren wrote:
On Jul 17, 2006, at 4:57 PM, Clark Williams wrote:
Now, I really don't like the idea of adding *anything* to the default
build chroot (other than what's required to build a package). It's
slow enough
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
OK, here's a first pass hack. This could be better written in Python
and could extract some bits from the mock configuration, but this does
at least work. It builds the package, installs rpmlint and all of the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
CW == Clark Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
CW Just so you know, I have a version of mock that takes a
--rpmlint CW command line option which will add rpmlint to the
chroot CW transaction set, install
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Christian Iseli and I were discussing the possibility of automatically
running rpmlint somehow.
Hey, thanks for posting this... I was just about to post such a message
myself :-)
I've tried to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The branch for mock 0.6 has been cut and my modifications for the new
launcher mechanism have been checked into the head of CVS (which is
now at 0.7). Please pull the new stuff and beat on it. You'll need to
clean up the links in /etc/mock, since
-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 lock
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 12:07 -0500, Clark Williams wrote:
I'm not wedded to the names or the methodology (that's just how we
tend to manage branches in my group).
My feeble brain has a hard time grasping a branch _from_ 0.6
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Looks good to me.
--
Michael
It's done.
There is now a mock-0-6-branch that we can use if we have to make any
emergency fixes to the currently released mock.
I'm getting ready to check in the launcher changes, which are
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
asideSorry for the format of the posts today, forced to use stupid
webmail which is slow and ugly./aside
How about the old unix everything is a file concept? We could just have
a --status_file parameter that could take a
-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 plague
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Default config file contents
Discussion topic:
With the recent changes to mock, several default config file options
have changed. I am of the opinion that we should provide a config
file with only the basic things that
.
//
// Copyright (c) 2006 - Clark Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
// portions lifted from mock-helper.c by Seth Vidal
// namespace idea courtesy Enrico Scholz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
//#define _GNU_SOURCE
#include config.h
#include stdio.h
#include sys/types.h
#include sys/stat.h
#include sys/wait.h
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike McLean wrote:
Clark Williams wrote:
Note that the program makes use of Linux namespaces. This *should*
make our handling of mount points within the chroot (/proc, /sys,
etc.) a bit easier to clean up, since when the process dies the mounts
.
//
// Copyright (c) 2006 - Clark Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
// portions lifted from mock-helper.c by Seth Vidal
// namespace idea courtesy Enrico Scholz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
//#define _GNU_SOURCE
#include config.h
#include stdio.h
#include sys/types.h
#include sys/stat.h
#include sys/wait.h
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Williams wrote:
On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 16:32 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Have you tried it with plague? If not, I'll put your version
on my local plague server and see if it causes any grief
(don't expect it to).
I did not see an *easy*
59 matches
Mail list logo
