Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 09:28 +0100, Christof Damian wrote:
>I just read about Red Hat ABE (Application Build Environment) which
>seems to be something similar to mach.
Hmmm, nice stuff.
Finally, someone has packaged up a KISSy chroot based build system, very
Watch out for:
* rpm-4.1.1 won't create multilib packaging correctly on AS2.1. You
ought to lose
rpm-4.1.1 at your earliest opportunity. Move to rpm-4.2.2-0.8 (at
with external beecrypt and elfutils, and you should be fine.
* --aid is as good or bad as the rpmdb used. I don't yet see tools to
headers incrementally, and --justdb from the rpm CLI is a
better could be done. In fact has been done ...
* perl sux equally as much as python ;-)
the goals are very similar to mach, but mach uses apt which made it
suitable as basis for the ABE
I suggested to mach developers quite some time ago that --aid was more than
enough to populate an empty chroot from rpm packages. Thanks for the
proof that, indeed, --aid is sufficient.
>Will this be available or work on fedora? Has anyone tried it ?
it'll work for fc3 for sure; I tested that extensively ;)
Older fedoras might need some minor tweaks
Aside from the issues above, I dunno of any rpm implementation
problems that would prevent rhel-abe from being used for any/all
of FCn, but there's a great deal of churn-and-burn packaging and rpm
details that need to be accomodated. Probably that's what you mean by
There are later versions of rpm built for FC1/FC2/FC3 at
that will never ever be released "officially" (due to lack of interest),
but those packages might be useful as starting points for adjusting
some of the "tweaks" between fc1/fc2/fc3/fc4.
Latest possible common version of rpm for all of fc1/fc2/fc3/fc4 would
only help eliminate "tweaks".
Disclaimer: I dunno where rhel-abe came from, and I dunno where
rhel-abe is going, and I've never used rhel-abe, or knew rhel-abe existed,
until an hour ago.
So my comments are from examining the srpm, nothing more.
73 de Jeff