-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Remy,
Excelent work! I, for one, appreciate your effort. Now that you have re-inspired me, I have a basic comps.xml question that I _think_ has already been answered here (pardon my dense-ness): In theory if you want to create a very stripped down subset of FC you could: 1. Generate a list of package %name that yield no external dependncies 2. Create "comps.xml" that only lists %name from (1) in a group called "base" 3. Do the pungi pungi ;P Is this correct? Earl On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 11:36:12 -0500 Remy Bohmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Hello All, > >I got it! but, it is very strange... ;-)) > >I debugged the pkgorder script and found the following: >* At the routine 'processTransaction()' the complete lists of >dependencies is available, then it calls the routine >printMatchingPkgs() to print the packages to standard, after it >has >checked that they are available. >* The filemask that is passed to printMatchingPkgs() through >'fpattern', is build up as follows: <os-dir>/Product/package*. >Where >Product starts with a capital, but my product_name in the pungi >configuration does NOT star with a capital. So, the product-dir in >the >os-dir does not start with a capital. So, no dependency files can >be >found, leaving a os-disc1 with just a few files in it... > >I searched through the entire tree several times, but nowhere I >have >listed the productname with a capital, so this capital must be >introduced by the tooling itself ! (Fedora also starts with a >capital... Redhat also, and probably other distros using anaconda >also?) > >So, to be able to build a customised CD, you must use a >product_name >in Pungi that starts with a capital. I have changed this in my >build >environment and now it works! > >I believe the problem is introduced by collecting the dependencies >in >the routine addGroups() -> ds.ResolveDeps() in the pkgorder >script. > >For me it is going to deep in the external tooling, which I do not >fully understand yet how they work. Maybe someone else recognises >this >phenomenon and can pick it up from here? >Or if someone can give me some tips on this, I can look further >into it... > > >Kind Regards, > >Remy Bohmer > > > >2007/2/2, Remy Bohmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Hello All, >> >> I renamed all my groups to 'core', 'base', 'base-x' and >> 'development-tools', and it does not make any difference... So, >I >> believe it is not only related to the group naming in the comps >> file... I am going to debug this some more today. >> >> If anyone has a good idea about this, please let me know. >> >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> Remy >> >> 2007/2/1, Jesse Keating <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> > On Thursday 01 February 2007 05:40, Remy Bohmer wrote: >> > > Attached are the results of this command: >> > > /usr/lib/anaconda-runtime/pkgorder >> > > /home/me/cdbuildtree/results/myrelease/i386/os i386 >myproduct >> > > >> > > I replaced 'myproduct' with 'Fedora'. No differences. >> > > The produced list is exactly like the list of RPM's in my os- >disc1- >> > > directory. Thus, much too short... >> > > >> > > Does this give you some new ideas? >> > >> > It would appear that pkgorder doesn't know about the other >groups you have in >> > your comps file perhaps. pkgorder is just a python script, >I'd poke at it >> > and see how it figures out the order, and see if perhaps you >need to change >> > your group names in comps. >> > >> > -- >> > Jesse Keating >> > Release Engineer: Fedora >> > >> > >> > >-- >Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify Version: Hush 2.5 wkYEARECAAYFAkXDlhAACgkQk7+e+4lPSm2O8QCeJENc6P4EPIp7FOovcYe9j6CbbZkA oLuWDtzc5RdQdabfbniUajwiXZ+h =40Tu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
