I cannot really speak for the mock guys, but to me, these patches look
very good.
-- self-contained
-- limited scope
-- elegant
They add required functionality without making changes across the
codebase. In particular, your solution for the additional dependencies
looks elegant and cool.
--
Michael
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Andreas Thienemann
> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 3:27 PM
> To: Discussion of Fedora build system
> Subject: Patches for shared configurations items and
> specifying additional dependencies
>
> Hello List,
>
> as it seems to be patch submission time, I'm pushing two
> patches to the list, I had lying around for some time now.
>
> The first patch allows mock to parse a generic side-wide
> config file, where general configuration-items can be stored
> and later overridden by specific chroot-definitions.
>
>
> The second patch, is a bit different:
> While pushing the Fedora Core SRPMS through the mock
> buildsystem we noticed many SRPMS which do not correctly
> define their buildrequirements.
> Until the fedora core developer responsible for the package
> has updated the spec in cvs and pushed an updated srpm into
> rawhide, there is no way to make the package in question
> build in mock without having to change the .spec.
> Thus, in order to allow even these broken packages being
> built, we needed a way to work around these broken
> dependencies to see if anything else was missing.
> This is done by the second patch, which adds a more_buildreqs
> config option. If set the given dependencies are installed
> _in addition_ to the ones from the .spec file.
>
> While the second patch should not be used during normal use
> and is definetly not for the fedora-extras buildservers, it
> still is of interest to other parties, using mock.
>
>
>
> regards,
> andreas
>
--
Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list
Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
