Re: [OS-BUILD PATCH 0/3] Implement better SRPM BuildRequires check
From: Don Zickus on gitlab.com https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/1786#note_951732268 Oh and @omos filed this https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel- ark/-/merge_requests/1781 because he got hit with my buildreqs change from last week. That MR kinda undoes the check and defeats the spirit of it. ___ kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: [OS-BUILD PATCH 3/3] [redhat] Add dist-buildreq-check for binary rpm builds
From: Don Zickus on gitlab.com https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/1786#note_951723323 Sure, but it doesn't describe why some rpmbuild commands get it, while others do not. Hence the -binary part. If you are building binaries you needed the extra suffix. This makes it clear for future targets. While the rule is the same for your name, it doesn't appear to be as clear to me. ___ kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: [OS-BUILD PATCH 0/3] Implement better SRPM BuildRequires check
From: Don Zickus on gitlab.com https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/1786#note_951720936 @hertonrk-rh @prarit @jmflinuxtx To answer a variety of questions. Yes srpm processes the configs. It kinda has to otherwise what is rpmbuild going to use to build the kernel? :-) Why is this an issue now? It popped up with my MR last week actually fixing how this works (otherwise the dep was only rpmbuild). Some folks do not want to install the full list of buildreqs just to generate a srpm and upload it. Especially for users on Fedora trying to build a RHEL-X srpm and don't want to have to install obsoleted or missing RHEL-X buildreqs (system-sb-certs, llvm- tools, etc). As for 'dnf builddep kernel' that could work too in some cases. One quirk with that approach is it needs to match the kernel in development, so a RHEL kernel on a Fedora distro may not work. But we can advertise this too if we want. I am also looking at the docs here: https://cki-project.gitlab.io/kernel- ark/#cloning-the-repository should either be auto-generated or told to use 'dnf builddep kernel'. I am working with COPR and they didn't have an easy way to install the packages necessary to build the srpm other than guessing. I am trying to improve the user experience git clone make dist-srpmbuildreqs-check | sudo dnf install (??) make dist-srpm koji build or something like that. IOW there is a gap here that I am trying to address with a consistent story. Something that isn't complicated (yeah, this MR leans toward complicated). Thoughts? ___ kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
✅ PASS: Test report for kernel 5.17.9-200.fc35 (fedora-35)
Hello, We ran automated tests on the following kernel build: Kernel package: kernel-5.17.9-200.fc35 Task URL: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=87205287 The results of these automated tests are provided below. Overall result: PASSED Tests: OK All kernel binaries, config files, and logs are available for download here: https://arr-cki-prod-datawarehouse-public.s3.amazonaws.com/index.html?prefix=datawarehouse-public/2022/05/18/542420152 Please reply to this email if you have any questions about the tests that we ran or if you have any suggestions on how to make future tests more effective. For the full detail on our testing procedures, please scroll to the bottom of this message. ,-. ,-. ( C ) ( K ) Continuous `-',-.`-' Kernel ( I ) Integration `-' __ Hardware testing We booted each kernel and ran the following tests: aarch64: Host 1: ⚡ Internal infrastructure issues prevented one or more tests (marked with ⚡⚡⚡) from running on this architecture. This is not the fault of the kernel that was tested. ⚡⚡⚡ SELinux Custom Module Setup ⚡⚡⚡ machineinfo ⚡⚡⚡ Boot test ⚡⚡⚡ IPMI driver test ⚡⚡⚡ IPMItool loop stress test ⚡⚡⚡ stress: stress-ng - interrupt ⚡⚡⚡ stress: stress-ng - cpu ⚡⚡⚡ stress: stress-ng - cpu-cache ⚡⚡⚡ stress: stress-ng - memory ⚡⚡⚡ Storage blktests - blk ⚡⚡⚡ Storage blktests - nvme-tcp ⚡⚡⚡ Storage block - filesystem fio test ⚡⚡⚡ Storage block - queue scheduler test ⚡⚡⚡ Storage block - storage fio numa ⚡⚡⚡ Reboot test Host 2: ⚡ Internal infrastructure issues prevented one or more tests (marked with ⚡⚡⚡) from running on this architecture. This is not the fault of the kernel that was tested. ⚡⚡⚡ SELinux Custom Module Setup ⚡⚡⚡ machineinfo ⚡⚡⚡ Boot test ⚡⚡⚡ ACPI table test ⚡⚡⚡ ACPI enabled test ⚡⚡⚡ i2c: i2cdetect sanity ⚡⚡⚡ LTP - cve ⚡⚡⚡ LTP - sched ⚡⚡⚡ LTP - syscalls ⚡⚡⚡ LTP - can ⚡⚡⚡ LTP - commands ⚡⚡⚡ LTP - containers ⚡⚡⚡ LTP - dio ⚡⚡⚡ LTP - fs ⚡⚡⚡ LTP - fsx ⚡⚡⚡ LTP - math ⚡⚡⚡ LTP - hugetlb ⚡⚡⚡ LTP - mm ⚡⚡⚡ LTP - nptl ⚡⚡⚡ LTP - pty ⚡⚡⚡ LTP - ipc ⚡⚡⚡ LTP - tracing ⚡⚡⚡ LTP: openposix test suite ⚡⚡⚡ CIFS Connectathon ⚡⚡⚡ POSIX pjd-fstest suites ⚡⚡⚡ Loopdev Sanity ⚡⚡⚡ jvm - jcstress tests ⚡⚡⚡ Memory: fork_mem ⚡⚡⚡ Memory function: memfd_create ⚡⚡⚡ AMTU (Abstract Machine Test Utility) ⚡⚡⚡ Networking bridge: sanity ⚡⚡⚡ Ethernet drivers sanity ⚡⚡⚡ Networking MACsec: sanity ⚡⚡⚡ Networking socket: fuzz ⚡⚡⚡ Networking sctp-auth: sockopts test ⚡⚡⚡ Networking: igmp conformance test ⚡⚡⚡ Networking route: pmtu ⚡⚡⚡ Networking route_func - local ⚡⚡⚡ Networking route_func - forward ⚡⚡⚡ Networking TCP: keepalive test ⚡⚡⚡ Networking UDP: socket ⚡⚡⚡ Networking cki netfilter test ⚡⚡⚡ Networking tunnel: geneve basic test ⚡⚡⚡ Networking tunnel: gre basic ⚡⚡⚡ L2TP basic test ⚡⚡⚡ Networking tunnel: vxlan basic ⚡⚡⚡ Networking tunnel: permtest ⚡⚡⚡ Networking ipsec: basic netns - transport ⚡⚡⚡ Networking ipsec: basic netns - tunnel ⚡⚡⚡ Networking vnic: ipvlan/basic ⚡⚡⚡ Libkcapi AF_ALG test ⚡⚡⚡ pciutils: update pci ids test ⚡⚡⚡ ALSA PCM loopback test ⚡⚡⚡ ALSA Control (mixer) Userspace Element test ⚡⚡⚡ Storage: block zstd smoke test ⚡⚡⚡ storage: dm/common ⚡⚡⚡ lvm thinp sanity ⚡⚡⚡ lvm snapper test ⚡⚡⚡ storage: SCSI VPD ⚡⚡⚡ Storage: swraid mdadm raid_module test ⚡⚡⚡ Storage: swraid scsi_raid ⚡⚡⚡ trace: ftrace/tracer ⚡⚡⚡ Podman system test - as root ⚡⚡⚡ Podman system test - as user ⚡⚡⚡ NFS Connectathon ⚡⚡⚡ Firmware test suite ⚡⚡⚡ Memory function: kaslr ⚡⚡⚡ Networking VRF: sanity ⚡⚡⚡ audit: audit testsuite test ⚡⚡⚡ Usex - version 1.9-29 ⚡⚡⚡ Storage: block zstd compression test ⚡⚡⚡ lvm thinp stqe test ⚡⚡⚡ lvm cache test ⚡⚡⚡ storage: software RAID testing ⚡⚡⚡ storage: targetcli basic ⚡⚡⚡ Reboot test Host 3: ⚡ Internal infrastructure issues prevented one or more tests (marked with ⚡⚡⚡) from running on this architecture. This is not the fault of the kernel that was tested. ⚡⚡⚡ SELinux Custom Module Setup ⚡⚡⚡ machineinfo ⚡⚡⚡ Boot test ⚡⚡⚡ Storage blktests - nvmeof-mp ⚡⚡⚡ Reboot test Host 4: ⚡ Internal infrastructure issues prevented
Re: [OS-BUILD PATCH 1/3] [redhat] Explicitly set srpm requirements
From: Don Zickus on gitlab.com https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/1786#note_951705198 I can't prove it mathematically, but in order to build the SRPM, you need to build the configs. What does dist-configs-check do that regular dist-configs does not? And if it is missing something, then we add it in there. ___ kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: [OS-BUILD PATCH 0/3] Implement better SRPM BuildRequires check
From: Prarit Bhargava on gitlab.com https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/1786#note_951641657 @hertonrk-rh @jmflinuxtx : I think we just all asked the same question of @dzickusrh, but in slightly different ways :smile: ___ kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: [OS-BUILD PATCH 1/3] [redhat] Explicitly set srpm requirements
From: Prarit Bhargava on gitlab.com https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/1786#note_951640333 OOC what happens if the SRPM builds correctly, but something like 'dist-configs-check' fails because there are missing BuildRequires? IOW, is SPECSRPMBUILDREQS really complete? ___ kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: [OS-BUILD PATCH 0/3] Implement better SRPM BuildRequires check
From: Justin M. Forbes on gitlab.com https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/1786#note_951633741 srpm generation does process configs. While you may not need full deps for a proper config check, there are some which are required. That was what I meant about this being a new list we will have to maintain. Which buildreq's are critical? I am somewhat curious as to what the driver is for this though. Is it the space required, or just having to manually install all of the deps? If it is the later, 'sudo dnf builddep kernel' makes it pretty easy. ___ kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: [OS-BUILD PATCH 3/3] [redhat] Add dist-buildreq-check for binary rpm builds
From: Prarit Bhargava on gitlab.com https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/1786#note_951632878 I understand why you've named this 'do-rpmbuild-binary' but I think that will be confusing to a casual reader. At first glance I thought it implied that do-rpmbuild is for generating SRPMs only. Perhaps a better name here would be 'do-rpmbuild-buildreq-check'? I realize that is an annoyingly long name but it does describe what the target actually does. ___ kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: [OS-BUILD PATCH 0/3] Implement better SRPM BuildRequires check
From: Herton R. Krzesinski on gitlab.com https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/1786#note_951631511 However, what about the case srpm builds correctly, but configs fail on build, due an extra buildrequires that is now present? In that case, I believe SPECSRPMBUILDREQS needs some packages added, like glibc-static. ___ kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: [OS-BUILD PATCH 0/3] Implement better SRPM BuildRequires check
From: Herton R. Krzesinski on gitlab.com https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/1786#note_951629181 or change the dist-config-check dependencies to add dist-buildreq-check, I supposed it can work. ___ kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: [OS-BUILD PATCH 0/3] Implement better SRPM BuildRequires check
From: Herton R. Krzesinski on gitlab.com https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/1786#note_951627747 I believe you need to add a new dist-configs-prep-rpm and dist-configs-prep- srpm: srpm generation does not process configs right? But other targets that may process it will need full build requires because some package missing can change the config generation. ___ kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[OS-BUILD PATCH 2/3] [redhat] Makefile: drop duplicate dist-sources deps
From: Ondrej Mosnacek [redhat] Makefile: drop duplicate dist-sources deps do-rpmbuild itself already depends on dist-sources, thus no need to specify when we depend on do-rpmbuild already. Signed-off-by: Ondrej Mosnacek diff --git a/redhat/Makefile b/redhat/Makefile index blahblah..blahblah 100644 --- a/redhat/Makefile +++ b/redhat/Makefile @@ -574,29 +574,29 @@ do-rpmbuild: dist-sources $(RPMBUILD) --define "_sourcedir $(SOURCES)" --define "_builddir $(RPM)/BUILD" --define "_srcrpmdir $(RPM)/SRPMS" --define "_rpmdir $(RPM)/RPMS" --define "_specdir $(RPM)/SPECS" --define "dist $(DIST)" $(RPMBUILDOPTS) $(RPM)/SOURCES/$(PACKAGE_NAME).spec dist-all-rpms: RPMBUILDOPTS=--target $(MACH) -ba -dist-all-rpms: dist-sources do-rpmbuild +dist-all-rpms: do-rpmbuild dist-srpm: RPMBUILDOPTS=--nodeps -bs -dist-srpm: dist-sources do-rpmbuild +dist-srpm: do-rpmbuild dist-srpm-gcov: BUILDID=.gcov dist-srpm-gcov: BUILDOPTS+=+gcov dist-srpm-gcov: dist-srpm dist-rpms: RPMBUILDOPTS=--target $(MACH) -bb -dist-rpms: dist-sources do-rpmbuild +dist-rpms: do-rpmbuild -dist-kernel-%: dist-sources +dist-kernel-%: RPMBUILDOPTS="--target $(MACH) --with $* -bb" make do-rpmbuild dist-prep: RPMBUILDOPTS=--nodeps --target noarch -bp -dist-prep: dist-sources do-rpmbuild +dist-prep: do-rpmbuild dist-perf: RPMBUILDOPTS=--without up --without smp --without zfcpdump --without debug --without doc --without headers --without --without doc --without debuginfo --target $(MACH) -bb -dist-perf: dist-sources do-rpmbuild +dist-perf: do-rpmbuild dist-rpm-baseonly: RPMBUILDOPTS=--target $(MACH) --without debug --without debuginfo --without vdso_install --without bpftool --without perf --without tools -bb -dist-rpm-baseonly: dist-sources do-rpmbuild +dist-rpm-baseonly: do-rpmbuild # unless you know what you're doing, you don't want to use the next four ones dist-release-finish: setup-source -- https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/1786 ___ kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[OS-BUILD PATCH 1/3] [redhat] Explicitly set srpm requirements
From: Don Zickus
[redhat] Explicitly set srpm requirements
It isn't clear what packages are necessary to be installed to generate
the srpm for the kernel. Use another spec macro to call out the exact
packages needed. This allows a makefile target to be used to verify the
right packages have been installed.
Signed-off-by: Don Zickus
diff --git a/redhat/Makefile b/redhat/Makefile
index blahblah..blahblah 100644
--- a/redhat/Makefile
+++ b/redhat/Makefile
@@ -84,6 +84,7 @@ TESTPATCH:=$(REDHAT)/linux-kernel-test.patch
SPECCHANGELOG:=$(PACKAGE_NAME).changelog-$(RHEL_MAJOR).$(RHEL_MINOR)
CHANGELOG_PREV:=$(PACKAGE_NAME).changelog-$(RHEL_MAJOR).$(shell expr
$(RHEL_MINOR) - 1)
ARCH_LIST=aarch64 ppc64le s390x x86_64
+SPECSRPMBUILDREQS := git-core make gcc flex bison bzip2
ifndef DISTRO
ifneq ($(findstring .fc,$(DIST)),)
@@ -391,7 +392,7 @@ rh-configs: dist-rhel-configs
dist-configs-check: dist-configs-prep
+cd $(REDHAT)/configs; ./process_configs.sh
$(PROCESS_CONFIGS_CHECK_OPTS) "" ""
-dist-configs-prep: dist-clean-configs dist-buildreq-check
+dist-configs-prep: dist-clean-configs dist-srpmbuildreq-check
+cd $(REDHAT)/configs; ./build_configs.sh "partial" "snip"
+cd $(REDHAT)/configs; ./build_configs.sh "$(PACKAGE_NAME)" "$(FLAVOR)"
@@ -469,6 +470,17 @@ dist-git-version-check:
exit 1; \
fi
+dist-srpmbuildreq-check: setup-source
+ @PKGLIST="rpm-build $(SPECSRPMBUILDREQS)"; \
+ MISSING=""; \
+ for pkg in $$PKGLIST; do \
+ rpm -q --whatprovides $$pkg >/dev/null || MISSING="$$MISSING
$$pkg"; \
+ done; \
+ if [ -n "$$MISSING" ]; then \
+ echo "Error: please 'dnf install $$MISSING'"; \
+ exit 1; \
+ fi
+
dist-buildreq-check: setup-source
@PKGLIST="rpm-build $$(rpmspec -q --buildrequires
$(SOURCES)/$(SPECFILE) | cut -d ' ' -f 1)"; \
MISSING=""; \
@@ -812,6 +824,7 @@ dist-full-help:
@echo ''
@echo 'Misc targets:'
+ @echo ' dist-srpmbuildreq-check - Checks for presence of packages
required for the srpm'
@echo ' dist-buildreq-check - Checks for presence of packages
required for build'
@echo ' dist-get-latest - Returns the latest "known good" kernel from
brew. This'
@echo 'should not be confused with the latest
top-of-tree'
diff --git a/redhat/genspec.sh b/redhat/genspec.sh
index blahblah..blahblah 100755
--- a/redhat/genspec.sh
+++ b/redhat/genspec.sh
@@ -70,6 +70,7 @@ test -f "$SOURCES/$SPECFILE" &&
s/%%SPECINCLUDE_RHEL_FILES%%/$SPECINCLUDE_RHEL_FILES/
s/%%SPECPATCHLIST_CHANGELOG%%/$SPECPATCHLIST_CHANGELOG/
s/%%SPECVERSION%%/$SPECVERSION/
+ s/%%SPECSRPMBUILDREQS%%/$SPECSRPMBUILDREQS/
s/%%SPECTARFILE_RELEASE%%/$SPECTARFILE_RELEASE/" "$SOURCES/$SPECFILE"
test -n "$RHSELFTESTDATA" && test -f "$SOURCES/$SPECFILE" && sed -i -e "
/%%SPECCHANGELOG%%/r $SOURCES/$SPECCHANGELOG
diff --git a/redhat/kernel.spec.template b/redhat/kernel.spec.template
index blahblah..blahblah 100755
--- a/redhat/kernel.spec.template
+++ b/redhat/kernel.spec.template
@@ -570,9 +570,10 @@ Requires: kernel-modules-uname-r = %{KVERREL}
#
# List the packages used during the kernel build
#
-BuildRequires: kmod, patch, bash, coreutils, tar, git-core, which
-BuildRequires: bzip2, xz, findutils, gzip, m4, perl-interpreter, perl-Carp,
perl-devel, perl-generators, make, diffutils, gawk
-BuildRequires: gcc, binutils, redhat-rpm-config, hmaccalc, bison, flex, gcc-c++
+BuildRequires: %%SPECSRPMBUILDREQS%%
+BuildRequires: kmod, patch, bash, coreutils, tar, which
+BuildRequires: xz, findutils, gzip, m4, perl-interpreter, perl-Carp,
perl-devel, perl-generators, diffutils, gawk
+BuildRequires: binutils, redhat-rpm-config, hmaccalc, gcc-c++
BuildRequires: net-tools, hostname, bc, elfutils-devel
BuildRequires: dwarves
BuildRequires: python3-devel
--
https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/1786
___
kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[OS-BUILD PATCH 3/3] [redhat] Add dist-buildreq-check for binary rpm builds
From: Don Zickus [redhat] Add dist-buildreq-check for binary rpm builds By simplifying the package check to srpm only, we neglect to check the packaging for local binary rpm building. Add that Makefile dependency for those cases. Signed-off-by: Don Zickus diff --git a/redhat/Makefile b/redhat/Makefile index blahblah..blahblah 100644 --- a/redhat/Makefile +++ b/redhat/Makefile @@ -573,8 +573,10 @@ dist-test-patch: generate-testpatch-tmp do-rpmbuild: dist-sources $(RPMBUILD) --define "_sourcedir $(SOURCES)" --define "_builddir $(RPM)/BUILD" --define "_srcrpmdir $(RPM)/SRPMS" --define "_rpmdir $(RPM)/RPMS" --define "_specdir $(RPM)/SPECS" --define "dist $(DIST)" $(RPMBUILDOPTS) $(RPM)/SOURCES/$(PACKAGE_NAME).spec +do-rpmbuild-binary: dist-buildreq-check do-rpmbuild + dist-all-rpms: RPMBUILDOPTS=--target $(MACH) -ba -dist-all-rpms: do-rpmbuild +dist-all-rpms: do-rpmbuild-binary dist-srpm: RPMBUILDOPTS=--nodeps -bs dist-srpm: do-rpmbuild @@ -584,19 +586,19 @@ dist-srpm-gcov: BUILDOPTS+=+gcov dist-srpm-gcov: dist-srpm dist-rpms: RPMBUILDOPTS=--target $(MACH) -bb -dist-rpms: do-rpmbuild +dist-rpms: do-rpmbuild-binary dist-kernel-%: - RPMBUILDOPTS="--target $(MACH) --with $* -bb" make do-rpmbuild + RPMBUILDOPTS="--target $(MACH) --with $* -bb" make do-rpmbuild-binary dist-prep: RPMBUILDOPTS=--nodeps --target noarch -bp dist-prep: do-rpmbuild dist-perf: RPMBUILDOPTS=--without up --without smp --without zfcpdump --without debug --without doc --without headers --without --without doc --without debuginfo --target $(MACH) -bb -dist-perf: do-rpmbuild +dist-perf: do-rpmbuild-binary dist-rpm-baseonly: RPMBUILDOPTS=--target $(MACH) --without debug --without debuginfo --without vdso_install --without bpftool --without perf --without tools -bb -dist-rpm-baseonly: do-rpmbuild +dist-rpm-baseonly: do-rpmbuild-binary # unless you know what you're doing, you don't want to use the next four ones dist-release-finish: setup-source -- https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/1786 ___ kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[OS-BUILD PATCH 0/3] Implement better SRPM BuildRequires check
From: Don Zickus on gitlab.com Merge Request: https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/1786 Developers want to build a srpm locally and submit it to a build server like Koji. The current process checks the BuildRequires in the kernel.spec file to ensure all the right packages are there. However, that list includes too many packages. Reduce the list to the bare minimum. In addition cleanup the Makefile and utilize the original buildreqs-check target better. Signed-off-by: Don Zickus --- redhat/Makefile | 33 - redhat/genspec.sh | 1 + redhat/kernel.spec.template | 7 --- 3 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) ___ kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
