On Sunday, June 14, 2020 8:23:01 PM CEST Quentin Barnes wrote:
I've only tinkered a little with Koji many years ago. I only use
to build one-off RPMs, so I'm not sure how Koji's behavior differs from
mock in this case. Can you clarify or point me to docs to better
understand your point?
Koji builds against different buildroot than Mock (by default, when
--enablerepo=local is _not_ used). The difference is that Koji's
buildroot contains the build group. Check this output:
$ koji mock-config --target epel8-candidate --arch x86_64 | grep chroot_
config_opts['chroot_setup_cmd'] = 'groupinstall build'
While mock's default config has the list of packages instead.
That dnf group isn't published in the mirrored repositories, so we can
not rely on its existence in default mock configuration. The local
repository is not mirrored, thus it is pretty slow (and it may fail for
various reasons) so enabling that by default to bring the group into
transaction is not an option either.
So it sounds like the correct approach is to not discuss the
of 'kernel-rpm-macros' with this group, but to approach a different
Fedora group. Once they agree (or disagree) that decision will get
reflected back here. Right?
Discussing the original problem here is just fine, I think. We just need
to forward the conclusion to Fedora/EPEL people.
I'm not active in Fedora, so if anyone can suggest on what place
method (which email lists, IRC channels, BZ tickets, etc.) I should
start this discussion with Fedora, please let me know.
You can try pull-request in  and e.g. discuss on devel list  or in
releng tracker . If, for any reason, Fedora people think that
kernel-rpm-macros shouldn't be placed into minimal buildroot - we can
fallback to custom mock config as proposed before.