On 07/04/2014 04:41 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 07/04/2014 09:19 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
I'm sure it's easier to track and trace git.centos.org if you wrote the system and evolved your tools to cope with it.
you would do well to research the issue a bit,
- KB
So, the tools we used were developed after the git repo was populated. Pat Riehecky, Tyler Parsons and Bonnie King from Scientific Linux provided the patches for the existing tools to make them work much better (and some of the tools themselves) ... and Brian Stinson from Kansas State University provided centpkg. Kay Williams provided a tool to help with branding identification. Testers put in bugs at bugs.centos.org in a totally open QA process.
All of the mock configs are provided in git.centos.org:
https://git.centos.org/tree/sig-core!bld-seven.git
the repos we built against are provided on buildlogs.centos.org (starting with c7-*):
We simply use the git repo to create an SRPM, then send it to mock to build, the output you see there.
I guarantee you, I am the one building the RPMs, and I am building them using get_sources.sh, into_srpm.sh, return_disttag.sh, show_possible_srpms.sh, etc. from centos-git-common:
https://git.centos.org/tree/centos-git-common.git
I use the activity log of git:
https://git.centos.org/project/?p=rpms
and the rhn public errata page
https://access.redhat.com/security/updates/active/
to figure out if I need to build a package.
The git tree is just an exploded SRPM ... rpmbuild -bp turns it back into an SRPM, rpmbuild -bb (or mock) turns it into binaries.
There are no special tools, it is just repetitive, tedious work to check the activity log, if something changes, then check it out from the git repo, turn it into an SRPM, submit it to mock, sign it and put it where it goes.