I'm not sure if this is a bug so that is why I'm writing here first.
I would like to respin Fedora 8 Live CD, and I read documentation from pungi and revisor and it seams straightforward. But this is my fist time using it so I can't deny that the issue could be between the keyboard and the chair :)
So these are my steps:
1. Put selinux to permissive mode
2. Launch revisor
3. after being prompted for root password I type it in
4. on first screen "show advanced options" is grayed out so I click only thing I can - "Get Started"
5. On second screen [1] I choose "DVD Set" and "Optical Live Media" (I choose DVD despite Fedora 8 Live is a CD and not a DVD because on second screen it showed it needs 777MB of data and AFAIK CDs can't store more than 700MB) and clicked "Forward"
6. on third screen [2] I left "Revisor Configuration" by default to "/etc/revisor/revisor.conf" for "Configuration Section to Use" I choose "f8-i386" and clicked on apply (is apply necessary? repositories should change automatically as you choose configuration you want), I left destination directory to it's default "/srv/revisor/f8-i386" and I clicked forward
7. on fourth screen [3] for "Kickstart Configuration File" I choose "/usr/share/fedora-release/livecd-fedora-desktop.ks" and I checked these options: use repositories configured in the kickstart file use package manifest from kickstart data include kickstart file on installation media set installer to boot with kickstart by default
My intention was to recreate respin that was identical to official one, only with never packages, that is why I didn't choose any customization options.
then I click forward and then I came across this bug [4] and you can see the screenshot [5]
8. after clicking all those warnings for missing files I came to fifth screen and clicked forward
9. and again warnings about missing files [6], and after clicking the last one respining statred.
I saw lots of messages in revisor window "stat: cannot stat `chroot': No such file or directory" and also posted a bug [7] regarding that in bugzilla.
10. I got another error [8] because of some conflicts :( This one I didn't put on bugzilla.
Can you please check if I am doing something wrong or are all these legitimate bugs and revisor is broken temporarily?
Cheers, Valent.
[1] http://www.uploadgeek.com/uploads456/0/Screenshot-Revisor-1.png - second screen [2] http://www.uploadgeek.com/uploads456/0/Screenshot-Revisor-livecd-1.png - third screen [3] http://www.uploadgeek.com/uploads456/0/Screenshot-Revisor-livecd-2.png - fourth screen [4] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429681 - revisor missing files bug [5] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=292502 - revisor missing files #1 [6] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=292503 - revisor missing files #2 [7] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429689 - cp: cannot stat 'chroot' [8] http://www.uploadgeek.com/uploads456/0/Screenshot-Revisor-error.png
On Jan 22, 2008 9:39 AM, Valent Turkovic valent.turkovic@gmail.com wrote:
My intention was to recreate respin that was identical to official one, only with never packages, that is why I didn't choose any customization options.
Fedora Unity people are doing this sort of re-spin already. The best people to talk to in terms of revisor usage are the Fedora Unity folks since they are most likely the people who are using it most frequently.
Fedoraunity.org and #fedora-unity on freenode irc network
-jef
On 1/22/08, Jeff Spaleta jspaleta@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 22, 2008 9:39 AM, Valent Turkovic valent.turkovic@gmail.com wrote:
My intention was to recreate respin that was identical to official one, only with never packages, that is why I didn't choose any customization options.
Fedora Unity people are doing this sort of re-spin already. The best people to talk to in terms of revisor usage are the Fedora Unity folks since they are most likely the people who are using it most frequently.
Fedoraunity.org and #fedora-unity on freenode irc network
-jef
Ok, for usage I will go to them, but what about the bugs I reported about? Fedora unity people aren't developing revisor AFAIK, or are they?
Valent
Valent Turkovic wrote:
Ok, for usage I will go to them, but what about the bugs I reported about? Fedora unity people aren't developing revisor AFAIK, or are they?
Yes. They are. The best list for revisor questions is
http://lists.fedoraunity.org/mailman/listinfo/revisor-users
Rahul
On 1/22/08, Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Valent Turkovic wrote:
Ok, for usage I will go to them, but what about the bugs I reported about? Fedora unity people aren't developing revisor AFAIK, or are they?
Yes. They are. The best list for revisor questions is
http://lists.fedoraunity.org/mailman/listinfo/revisor-users
Rahul
Oh, thank you, I wasn't aware of that.
I thought since I'm using a really loudly advertised fedora feature, and config files which all of them are provided from fedora and not some 3rd party that this is the correct list.
Valent.
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:25:57 +0100 "Valent Turkovic" valent.turkovic@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, thank you, I wasn't aware of that.
I thought since I'm using a really loudly advertised fedora feature, and config files which all of them are provided from fedora and not some 3rd party that this is the correct list.
You are aware that the vast majority of software in Fedora is developed and discussed at their respective upstream locations, right?
2008/1/22 Jesse Keating jkeating@redhat.com:
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:25:57 +0100 "Valent Turkovic" valent.turkovic@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, thank you, I wasn't aware of that.
I thought since I'm using a really loudly advertised fedora feature, and config files which all of them are provided from fedora and not some 3rd party that this is the correct list.
You are aware that the vast majority of software in Fedora is developed and discussed at their respective upstream locations, right?
-- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
I am aware of that for stuff like gnome, but I thought that fedora is the upstream for revisor, sorry my mistake.
Valent.
On Jan 22, 2008 10:48 AM, Valent Turkovic valent.turkovic@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, for usage I will go to them, but what about the bugs I reported about? Fedora unity people aren't developing revisor AFAIK, or are they?
Here's where we talk about what it means to be a Fedora developer, versus just a developer.
In actually, very little is developed as part of fedora directly. There are multiple pieces of technology where fedora contributors are also significant upstream developers, but for most packages fedora!=upstream. Even when the project source code is hosted at hosted.fedoraproject.org, its still not necessarily appropriate to think of that project as a 'Fedora'
At the most naive level, it might be best to think of people building pieces of Fedora infrastructure as Fedora developers, and you'd mostly be right, since the infrastructure that Fedora project uses is in large part motivated by internal project needs. But other people do use those bits so they do have some upstream context that isn't completely defined by Fedora.
Outside of that it gets much harder to define when someone is Fedora developer specifically. Some examples....
The kernel is important to Fedora, but are the Fedora contributors Fedora developers...or are they kernel developers? I'd like to think of them as kernel developers who contribute to Fedora.. because in all the ways that matter they are driving important enhancements into the kernel base, so that all linux kernel users potentially benefit. Fedora as a project helps them do that more effectively by being an easy way for user to get access to kernel builds as part of an integrated whole. Can Fedora as a project change to be even an even more effective conduit to connect kernel developers and users... yes..now and forever.
The gnome desktop is important to Fedora, but are the gnome desktop contributors Fedora developers... or are the gnome developers? I'd like to think of them as gnome desktop developers who contribute to Fedora.. because in all the ways that matter they are driving important enhancements into the gnome codebase so that all gnome users potentially benefit. Fedora as a project helps them do that more effectively by being an easy way for user to get access to gnome builds as part of an integrated whole. Can Fedora as a project change to be even an even more effective conduit to connect gnome developers and users... yes..now and forever.
Similarly, revisor is its own upstream project with its own developers. We as a project are lucky enough to count some if not all of the developers of the tool as Fedora contributors. And hopefully the revisor developers see Fedora as a project an effective conduit to get users, using their bits. Can Fedora as a project change to be even an even more effective conduit to connect revisor developers and users... yes..now and forever.
-jef"Holy crap its above freezing here! I love global warming!"spaleta
On Jan 22, 2008 9:23 PM, Jeff Spaleta jspaleta@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 22, 2008 10:48 AM, Valent Turkovic valent.turkovic@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, for usage I will go to them, but what about the bugs I reported about? Fedora unity people aren't developing revisor AFAIK, or are they?
Here's where we talk about what it means to be a Fedora developer, versus just a developer.
In actually, very little is developed as part of fedora directly. There are multiple pieces of technology where fedora contributors are also significant upstream developers, but for most packages fedora!=upstream. Even when the project source code is hosted at hosted.fedoraproject.org, its still not necessarily appropriate to think of that project as a 'Fedora'
At the most naive level, it might be best to think of people building pieces of Fedora infrastructure as Fedora developers, and you'd mostly be right, since the infrastructure that Fedora project uses is in large part motivated by internal project needs. But other people do use those bits so they do have some upstream context that isn't completely defined by Fedora.
Outside of that it gets much harder to define when someone is Fedora developer specifically. Some examples....
The kernel is important to Fedora, but are the Fedora contributors Fedora developers...or are they kernel developers? I'd like to think of them as kernel developers who contribute to Fedora.. because in all the ways that matter they are driving important enhancements into the kernel base, so that all linux kernel users potentially benefit. Fedora as a project helps them do that more effectively by being an easy way for user to get access to kernel builds as part of an integrated whole. Can Fedora as a project change to be even an even more effective conduit to connect kernel developers and users... yes..now and forever.
The gnome desktop is important to Fedora, but are the gnome desktop contributors Fedora developers... or are the gnome developers? I'd like to think of them as gnome desktop developers who contribute to Fedora.. because in all the ways that matter they are driving important enhancements into the gnome codebase so that all gnome users potentially benefit. Fedora as a project helps them do that more effectively by being an easy way for user to get access to gnome builds as part of an integrated whole. Can Fedora as a project change to be even an even more effective conduit to connect gnome developers and users... yes..now and forever.
Similarly, revisor is its own upstream project with its own developers. We as a project are lucky enough to count some if not all of the developers of the tool as Fedora contributors. And hopefully the revisor developers see Fedora as a project an effective conduit to get users, using their bits. Can Fedora as a project change to be even an even more effective conduit to connect revisor developers and users... yes..now and forever.
-jef"Holy crap its above freezing here! I love global warming!"spaleta
Thanks Jeff for great reply!
Valent