<div>[ FYI, top posting on purpose ]</div><div><br></div><div>This information should be in the SRPMS, correct? (Arch-specifics might be more difficult though).</div><div>I'm thinking "out loud" here, so please excuse my ignorance of mash and related support here.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Before looking at the effort required, could someone tell me if the following solution be feasible?</div><div>1. Create a program to scrape through the SRPMS at <a href="http://ftp.redhat.com">ftp.redhat.com</a> (at least under whatever directories are EPEL policy) and build an blacklist of packages?</div>
<div>2. Modify mash to never build a package if it is this blacklist?</div><div><br></div><div>As far as Arch, as a start, the list could be only used for the x86-64 EPEL repo. Or am I way off-the-mark of what is feasible?</div>
<div><br></div><div>-- bjs</div><div><br></div>On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Dennis Gilmore <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dennis@ausil.us" target="_blank">dennis@ausil.us</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">On dom, 2013-03-17 at 10:55 -0500, inode0 wrote:<br>
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Kevin Fenzi <<a href="mailto:kevin@scrye.com">kevin@scrye.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> > On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 16:19:44 -0600<br>
> > inode0 <<a href="mailto:inode0@gmail.com">inode0@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>> >><br>
> >> Your situation probably explains most of the two large groups where<br>
> >> either we see the same version or we see a lower version lingering in<br>
> >> EPEL.<br>
> >><br>
> >> Why not generate these lists and exclude the packages in question from<br>
> >> the metadata built for architectures where they are included in RHEL?<br>
> ><br>
> > Yeah, I suppose we could hard code such a list into mash.<br>
> ><br>
> > I don't think the mash maintainers have time/desire to do this.<br>
> > Would anyone else be willing to look into it?<br>
><br>
> My lack of understanding the process is pretty limiting. Why in the<br>
> world does it need to be hardcoded into anything? Surely mash can grab<br>
> the list from a file or from the environment?!<br><br>
</div>mash is very simple. it takes the list of packages in the tag and makes<br>
a repo from them. making sure the rpms are signed by the key defined.<br>
it has no ability to do anything like has been proposed here. patches<br>
are welcome. but it would require a manually managed list of packages.<br>
since we don't have that info available. mash doesn't know about RHEL<br>
at all.<br></blockquote><div><br></div></div>