On 02/21/2011 11:23 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote: > >> The packages have to be built in a specific order, preferably the order >> that they are originally produced in, so that they can be linked >> properly. Package A builds, then Package B, then Package C. If package >> B is broken, it needs to be fixed, then Package C needs to be built, etc. > > What's the order for CentOS 6? This is published nowhere: all I can > find is http://people.centos.org/hughesjr/buildsystem/, which seems > targeted for CentOS 5. Just like it is published nowhere for RHEL 6. We don't know the answer ... we have to figure it out. Normally, initially we start out trying to build it in chronological order from the upstream build date (which you can see from the RPM info) ... as that is the order that the packages were initially produced in. Then we check the build via the tmverifyrpms and then we repeat as required. > >> This is not something that can be done by several people at the same >> time in parallel, no. Not and be done correctly. > > Sure it can!!! That's what source control is for!!!! The local > branches with personal tweaks are kept local, and require an > occasional pull (or merge) from the upstream canonical repository. > We are not changing the sources at all ... we do not change the sources. The sources are pristine (except for the trademark changes). > The smaller changes, such as wrappers to address missing dependencies > or tweaks to deal with Can't change the SRPM ... it needs to stay the same. > >> This is very complex to bootstrap an OS from the beginning when upstream >> does not provide all the build requirements in one repo. >> >> I am not sure what you want ... mabye you should try building it >> yourself and see how easy or hard it is. > > I've got a CentOS 5 build environment up and running, from a ways > back. But you say I need RHEL 5.90 beta or Fedora 12 to work from from > to build RHEL 6 SRPMS? That will take some setup, and it's documented > nowhere. > Because, we have not gotten it to build yet, it is in progress. We do not KNOW the correct answer. >> Seeing as how we are currently dealing with 2 trees in the QA directory >> for testing right now (4.9 and 5.6) ... 6.0 will be waiting until we get >> those out of QA. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 253 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20110221/16a128c5/attachment-0004.sig>