mock goals and non-goals

[seth vidal]

On Thu, 2006-05-11 at 21:10 +0200, Andreas Thienemann wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Thu, 11 May 2006, seth vidal wrote:
> 
> > goals:
> > - make clean and consistent build environments to be used by fedora's
> > buildsystem and packagers
> > - simplify building and testing process for packagers
> > - be able to canonically identify the 'build environment' for fedora
> > systems to discourage confusion on what should be where
> > - simple interface with good defaults.
> Why not a bit more generic and see mock as a tool to build rpms in a clean 
> and consistent buildroot. After all, we heard that SuSE RPMs can be built 
> with it too. And that's a feat s the last time I looked SuSE RPMs were 
> pretty bad dependency-wise.

then the suse config would have a different buildsys-build package/set
of pkgs.

> non-goals:
> > - this is not a tool to manage many, many builds with queuing, etc -
> > that is plague.
> ack IMHO. Even though plague needs still a bit of work it seems. livna's 
> plague installation only became stable as soon as I sent them a few 
> patches, which dcbw handed me on irc after bugging him about a few 
> problems. ;-D


which is why plague gets worked on. good.



> > course, the --no-clean option is passed in
> > - caching mechanism to create a cached pristine chroot that will allow
> > for quickly recreating the chroot into that state simply by putting that
> > cached copy back. 
> This would be simply great. Right now, the cycle of cearting the chroot, 
> installing the base-packages, doing the full depsolve-cycle,  building the 
> rpm and then removing the buildroot again takes ages.
> Something faster there might be great.


look at the caching patch jochen submitted some time back. Clean it up
and write up what it is it does and we'll put it in.


> > Patches which I am ambivalent about:
> > - the fake buildreqs/sneaky buildreqs patch for rebuilding items with
> > BROKEN buildrequires:
> >    - I hate the idea of enabling broken shit
> >    - I realize that there are lots of broken things that people need to
> > work around and I'm sympathetic to that, to some extent. Doesn't mean I
> > can't hate it.
> Well, nobody expects you to like it, it just has to be in mock. ;-D 

which is why  i put it under ambivalence.

-sv