FAQ
The speedups in building RPM's with "mock" from the EPEL packages for
RHEL 6 are *profound*, especially if your environment is like mine and
you have thousands of user id's. The issue seems to be the handling of
"/var/log/lastlog" and similar files, which are otherwise quite large
and take significant time to compress and uncompress when laying out
new mock environments.

Karabhir, what are the odds of encouragng a switch to
http://mirrors.kernel.org/fedora-epel/6/mock-1.1.8-1.el6.src.rpm, and
backporting it to centos/5/5/extras ? It's working very well for me,
and I think it would be a helpful improvement in RPM building for both
the CentOs 5.6 and CentOS 6 efforts.

Search Discussions

  • Karanbir Singh at Feb 2, 2011 at 8:13 am

    On 02/02/2011 01:01 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    Karabhir, what are the odds of encouragng a switch to
    http://mirrors.kernel.org/fedora-epel/6/mock-1.1.8-1.el6.src.rpm, and
    backporting it to centos/5/5/extras ? It's working very well for me,
    and I think it would be a helpful improvement in RPM building for both
    the CentOs 5.6 and CentOS 6 efforts.
    Performance isnt really a problem we need to solve on the
    centos-buildsys side of things; however keeping things consistent is an
    issue. Because of the way things have changed in mock >= 0.8 I'm
    hesitant to change what we have in production for c3/4/5 since we know
    it works and it works across the entire distro tree from 4.0 to 5.6

    So having the choice of the newer mock in epel isnt a bad thing as such,
    its just that the newer ver of mock isnt what is used internally within
    centos.

    Having said that, for centos6 we will almost certainly end up with a
    newer mock, at the moment its 1.1.3 ( slightly modified and has a few
    patches from 1.1.3+ ); but once we are ready to release we can bring in
    a newer mock, do a few tests and have that in c6/extras.

    - KB
  • JohnS at Feb 4, 2011 at 3:39 am

    On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 13:13 +0000, Karanbir Singh wrote:
    On 02/02/2011 01:01 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    Karabhir, what are the odds of encouragng a switch to
    http://mirrors.kernel.org/fedora-epel/6/mock-1.1.8-1.el6.src.rpm, and
    backporting it to centos/5/5/extras ? It's working very well for me,
    and I think it would be a helpful improvement in RPM building for both
    the CentOs 5.6 and CentOS 6 efforts.
    Hmmm: Nico

    The requested URL /fedora-epel/6/mock-1.1.8-1.el6.src.rpm was not found
    on this server.

    Maybe this:

    http://mirrors.kernel.org/fedora-epel/6/SRPMS/mock-1.1.8-1.el6.src.rpm ?

    How many SRPMS have you built with it? Do you use it under EL5?

    John
  • Nico Kadel-Garcia at Feb 4, 2011 at 5:44 pm

    On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 3:39 AM, JohnS wrote:
    On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 13:13 +0000, Karanbir Singh wrote:
    On 02/02/2011 01:01 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    Karabhir, what are the odds of encouragng a switch to
    http://mirrors.kernel.org/fedora-epel/6/mock-1.1.8-1.el6.src.rpm, and
    backporting it to centos/5/5/extras ? It's working very well for me,
    and I think it would be a helpful improvement in RPM building for both
    the CentOs 5.6 and CentOS 6 efforts.
    Hmmm: Nico

    The requested URL /fedora-epel/6/mock-1.1.8-1.el6.src.rpm was not found
    on this server.

    Maybe this:

    http://mirrors.kernel.org/fedora-epel/6/SRPMS/mock-1.1.8-1.el6.src.rpm ?

    How many SRPMS have you built with it? ?Do you use it under EL5?

    John
    I just found a nasty bug. Hold off on using that.
  • JohnS at Feb 5, 2011 at 9:17 am

    On Fri, 2011-02-04 at 17:44 -0500, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:

    I just found a nasty bug. Hold off on using that.
    Share it a bz #?


    John
  • Nico Kadel-Garcia at Feb 5, 2011 at 3:49 pm

    On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 9:17 AM, JohnS wrote:
    On Fri, 2011-02-04 at 17:44 -0500, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:

    I just found a nasty bug. Hold off on using that.
    Share it a bz #?


    John
    EPEL has a *nasty* habit of upgrading packages and not leaving the old
    one behind for reversion or regression testing. It makes for leaner
    distributions, but makes rolling back the upgrades more awkward, and
    tracing back where the error was introduced more awkard. It's just
    failing completely in my CentOS 5.5 instance, even with the the
    "epel-5-x86_64.cfg" configuration. The problem seems to have crept in
    with the most recent releases in epel-testing and the EPEL packages
    for RHEL 6.

    I'm also laughing pretty hard that the EPEL versions of mock point to
    CentOS, not to the yum-rhn-plugin based access to RHEL repositories.
  • Always Learning at Feb 5, 2011 at 5:46 pm

    On Sat, 2011-02-05 at 15:49 -0500, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:

    EPEL has a *nasty* habit of upgrading packages and not leaving the old
    one behind for reversion or regression testing. ......
    All the more reason to introduce a 'local' repository where packages can
    accumulate and gracefully grow old. When I get time I must set up my
    Internet accessible repo for multiple machines.

    --

    With best regards,

    Paul.
    England,
    EU.

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
groupcentos @
categoriescentos
postedFeb 2, '11 at 8:01a
activeFeb 5, '11 at 5:46p
posts7
users4
websitecentos.org
irc#centos

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase