[ATrpms-devel] rpm build environment

[Paulo Cavalcanti]

Yehp, the thing works.

I build for FC5 in a FC6 system, vlc and xpaint.
It takes some time to fix the missing build requirements,
but at the end the rpm is created.

These were the packages pulled from freshrpms for vlc. I think the list is
smaller now, than it used to be sometime ago.

gsm-1.0.10-6.fc5.i386.rpm
libdvbpsi-0.1.5-2.fc5.i386.rpm
libdvbpsi-devel-0.1.5-2.fc5.i386.rpm
libdvdnav-0.1.10-3.fc5.i386.rpm
libopendaap-0.4.0-2.fc5.i386.rpm
libopendaap-devel-0.4.0-2.fc5.i386.rpm
vcdimager-0.7.23-4.fc5.i386.rpm
vcdimager-devel-0.7.23-4.fc5.i386.rpm

I did not investigate too much, but it seems to me that you only have a
libpostproc51. It would be easier if it supplied "libpostproc" also

Axel, thank you for all the help, and have a very nice new year.
I wish that 2007 bring for us all the peace need.

/Paulo Roma.


On 12/31/06, Paulo Cavalcanti <promac at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> My interest on mock is because it is the environment used by Fedora
> developers, as far as I now. It takes more than 10 min to set up the
> chroot environment, and next time one tries to rebuilt a package, it
> deletes everything and starts from zero. An odd default, in my opinion.
> Another thing is that the chroot must be in /var/lib/mock. Of course,
> it is possible to bind another mount point to it.
>
> On the other hand, it has pre-created cfg files for all fedora flavors. I
> think one may have a 64 bit computer (and 64 bit fedora) and build 32 bit
> packages this way.
>
> What I would like to know is if I can build vlc using only ATrpms
> packages.
> I have some freshrpms video packages just to be able to build vlc, but
> maybe this is not necessary anymore.
>
> /Paulo Roma.
>
> On 12/31/06, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm at atrpms.net> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 09:01:40PM -0200, Paulo Cavalcanti wrote:
> > > Hi, Axel
> > >
> > > what is the simplest way to know if a rpm can be built
> > > with only ATrpms packages?
> > >
> > > I thought of using mock with atrpms repo included.
> > > Is this enough?
> >
> > I haven't used mock myself, but I think that would be enough. Any
> > chroot manager that only installs the BuildRequires (and recursive
> > dependencies) should be enough. I'm using a self-brewn set of sh
> > scripts that use apt to manage the chroot.
> >
> > > Can I use mock to build a package for any fedora version, using the
> > > appropriate cfg file?  The only weird thing is that it erases the
> > > chroot by default, forcing the use of the option --no-clean in every
> > > build.
> >
> > As said I don't know details of mock. I once tried to use mach, then
> > gave up on it and started to run simple scripts to (de)populate the
> > chroot. If there is interest I can shape them up and open them up for
> > further development.
> > --
> > Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Paulo Roma Cavalcanti
> LCG - UFRJ
>



-- 
Paulo Roma Cavalcanti
LCG - UFRJ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.atrpms.net/pipermail/atrpms-devel/attachments/20061231/77d245c9/attachment.html