Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On 02/01/2018 07:40 AM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>> On 01/31/2018 10:53 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>>> So we have a problem with what is the canonical place for SCL's. I was
>>> going from
http://mirror.centos.org/centos/7/sclo/ which just says x86_64.
>>
>> Even just getting x86_64 devtoolset into the potential buildroot for
>> EPEL would be hugely helpful to me, because that's all chromium cares
>> about right now.
>
> I filed a pull request to update mock-core-configs:
>
>
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/mock/pull/159
>
> If anyone here knows relevant folks on the SCL team who can
> provide some input on the preferred/canonical repository
> URLs (or any other issues with that PR), it would be great.
>
> I tend to think that the mock configs we ship should use
> whatever URLs the centos-release-scl{,-rh} packages use.
> That's what end-users would see if they wanted to rebuild
> packages outside of mock. If those change we can always
> update them in mock-core-configs to match.
Well, that will help people who do local mock builds, but won't do
anything for koji/epel. ;)
Of course. :)
Doing the mock part takes a little off the plate of the
folks who have access to make the changes in koji/epel.
More important, I think, is ensuring that local mock builds,
koji/epel builds, and plain old local rpmbuild builds work
as similarly as possible. The mock-core-config changes were
merged the other day, so with the next release we should see
devtoolset enabled in mock for x86_64. If/when other arches
move out of testing on CentOS and RHEL we'll just have to
update the mock configs.
I think at this point it just needs someone to do the
setup, and I think Peter said he could. If not, I can put
it on my list, but not sure when I would get to it.
Cool, thanks.
--
Todd
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The only difference between a rut and a grave is the depth.