[ATrpms-devel] rpm build environment

[Axel Thimm]

On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 12:06:30PM -0200, Paulo Cavalcanti wrote:
> 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

Where are all the "fr" tags?

> 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

libpostproc51 is part of ffmpeg - it is part of the runtime, if you
want to build against it use BuildRequires: ffmpeg-devel.

> 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.

Thanks, have a nice entry into 2007, too!

> /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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 

> _______________________________________________
> atrpms-devel mailing list
> atrpms-devel at atrpms.net
> http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-devel

-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.atrpms.net/pipermail/atrpms-devel/attachments/20061231/75f8878d/attachment.bin