On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 09:05:38AM +0100, Guido Günther wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 11:16:37AM +0100, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 02:27:51PM +0100, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> > > On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 01:22:27PM +0100, Guido Günther wrote:
> > >
> > > > ======================================================================
> > > > ERROR: test suite for <class
> > > > 'tests.component.rpm.test_pq_rpm.TestPqRpm'>
> > >
> > > Speaking of tests, I think that the following should also be included in
> > > the branch (unless I missed it elsewhere):
> > >
> > >
> > > http://git.tzafrir.org.il/cgit/git-buildpackage.git/commit/?id=b2d8fa3bdb750ddf974cb605de4e5f0c9b4281cb
> > >
> > > That repo also has a brute-force rebase of buildpackage-rpm on top of
> > > 0.6.22 (just that command. Others are still missing).
> > On top of that I now have an initial version of --git-mock - using mock
> > as a chroot builder for rpm packages. I basically copied the way
> > pbuilder is used (created a separate git-mock and used it as a builder).
> > Mock is already installed by default with its own permission elavtion
> > handler.
> > http://git.tzafrir.org.il/cgit/git-buildpackage.git/commit/?h=buildpackage-rpm&id=03e38ad87c882d62ce9f54709fcf8c535edc36fa
> > (I finally have clone URLs listed, but this is a single commit)
> > Basic usage:
> > gbp buildpackage-rpm --git-mock --git-dist=epel-6
> > Some notes:
> > * It runs mock twice. Once for generating the srpm and once for
> > generating the package from that. This is because some packages have
> > platform-dependent macros that may be expanded at srpm-build time.
> > Avoiding that and using rpmbuild directly would have been faster.
> > * I currently (for the sake of simplicity) avoid interpreting any
> > define-s sent in the command line and just assume the spec will be in
> > ./SPECS, sources in ./SOURCES, place the SRPM under ./SRPMS (I
> > consider it temporary).
> > * I don't have a good default for the resulting files. Currently I place
> > the results under ./results/<dist>/<arch>
> > What do you think?
> I've cleaned up the patch a little and applied it to current git. I
> think assuming that the above directory layout is fine.
> Avoiding a full build for the SRPM would be nice though, did you make
> any progress on that one?
I could do that (and this is what I did originally), but it means I have
to provide correct defaults for various system-related defines. I
suspect it should work in many cases but fail (or even fail silently, or
produce incorrect results) in others.
Maybe provide an option for both? Any opinions from other people?
Tzafrir Cohen | tzaf...@jabber.org | VIM is
http://tzafrir.org.il | | a Mutt's
tzaf...@cohens.org.il | | best
tzaf...@debian.org | | friend
git-buildpackage mailing list