mock seems better than mach, but they both seem to be good for testing , before publishing RPMs
What i wanted to know if there is a way to AUTO install the dependencies rather than just pointing them out
I could do it in %post.
Now the binaries for the dependencies along with their respective config files with become part of the rpm that i ship.
Any comments ?

From: Michael Schwendt <>
Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2012 3:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Can rpmbuild resolve these 4 issues ?

On Tue, 1 May 2012 12:21:40 -0700 (PDT), KA (Kamal) wrote:

> I found these in a article on mach:
> ref:
>     1. Given a spec file, rpmbuild won't download the source tarball and/or
> patches. You have to fetch those yourself into the SOURCES directory.
>     2. rpmbuild will abort if any build-time dependencies are missing, forcing
> you to stop what you're doing, and go and build and install those packages too.
>     3. When your package configures itself, it may auto-detect libraries which
> are available on your build system, but which are not going to be available
> on the target system. For example, if openldap-devel is present then
> openldap may be linked into your binaries, but if the RPM doesn't declare
> openldap as a dependency, then it will fail to run on the target system.
> This is an insiduous problem, which I call "the curse of autoconf".
>     4. You can only build packages for the same type of system as your build
> machine (e.g. CentOS 4 binaries on a CentOS 4 build system)
> Is there a way we can use rpmbuild to resolve these issues?

Take a look at "mock" instead?
yum -y install mock ; man mock

Fedora release 17 (Beefy Miracle) - Linux 3.3.4-1.fc17.x86_64
loadavg: 0.11 0.07 0.05
packaging mailing list