On 27 January 2018 at 15:41, Todd Zullinger <tmz@pobox.com> wrote:
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> 1. The proposal was accepted. The questions were answered in the meeting
> and also by Peter outside the meeting. Peter has answered it again because
> I was not clear.
>
> 2. The next step is getting the mock and fedpkg commands to work with the
> DTS cleanly. This means adding the lines to mock-core-configs package files
> for to do so. The package seems ot be owned by Releng but I am not sure as
> zodbot says no such package.

I think the way to get the changes into mock-core-configs is
to submit these changes to the mock project directly.
Something like this, perhaps:

    https://github.com/tmzullinger/mock/commit/d12eaa824

If that seems reasonable I can submit a pull request for
more review upstream.

I'm not sure if we want to limit the package set to
devtoolset* via includepkgs or not.  I did so in the above
commit and have tested it very lightly.  Restricting the
packages may help prevent packages from accidentally pulling
in bits from SCLo beyond the intended devtoolset packages.


If that works, I don't have a problem with that.
 
> %if 0%{?rhel} == 7
> BuildRequires: devtoolset-7-toolchain, devtoolset-7-libatomic-devel
> %endif

Technically, can't this be supported in epel-6 as well?
(Please pardon me if I have overlooked a decision to only
support DTS in epel-7.)


I don't know of any reason it would not work in EL-6 either. The spec files I found using devtool-set only set it to rhel 7. 
 
We'll also have to limit this to x86_64, won't we?  I didn't
see any other architectures with SCLo support in CentOS.  If
I've overlooked them and someone can point me to them, that
would be great.  If not, we'll just want to append

    && %{_arch} == x86_64

Maybe a macro can be added to epel-rpm-macros simplify this.
That would be one place to edit if/when additional relases
and architectures are added to SCLo.



I thought aarch64 was also supported for this. 


--
Stephen J Smoogen.