Re: [ovirt-devel] [ACTION REQUIRED] vdsm_master_build-artifacts-fc23-x86_64 is failing due to missing dep on fc23 .packages

On 04/14 13:17, Nir Soffer wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Vinzenz Feenstra <vfeenstr(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > >> On Apr 14, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Nir Soffer <nsoffer(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:23 PM, David Caro <dcaro(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > >>> On 04/14 12:06, Dan Kenigsberg wrote: > >>>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 11:56:10AM +0300, Dan Kenigsberg wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> I've added the package it check-patch.packages, but not to > >>>>> build-artifacts.packages. should be fixed in a minutes. Sorry. > >>>> > >>>> Actually, it's not that, as build-artifacts.packages is a softlink > >>>> > >>>> build-artifacts.packages.fc23 -> check-merged.packages.fc23 > >>>> > >>>> despite that, > >>>> > >>>> http://jenkins.ovirt.org/job/vdsm_master_build-artifacts-fc23-x86_64/823/... > >>>> > >>>> mock \ > >>>> --configdir="/home/jenkins/workspace/vdsm_master_build-artifacts-fc23-x86_64/vdsm" \ > >>>> --root="mocker-fedora-23-x86_64.fc23" \ > >>>> --install "autoconf automake git lago lago-ovirt libguestfs-tools-c m2crypto make mom policycoreutils-python pyflakes python-blivet python-coverage python-devel python-inotify python-ioprocess python-netaddr python-nose python-pep8 python-pthreading python-rtslib python-six python3-nose python3-six rpm-build sudo yum yum-utils grubby" \ > >>>> --resultdir="logs/mocker-fedora-23-x86_64.fc23.install_packages" > >>>> > >>>> does not list python3-netaddr. Any idea why? > >>> > >>> That package is not in the packages list of the check-merged.packages.fc23 file > >>> for that patch: > >> > >> We have single place for build requirements - vdsm.spec. How about > >> using yum builddep to > >> install dependencies instead of duplicating the data? > > > > That’s not really feasible, since we are generating vdsm.spec during the run of configure, then again configure requires some packages to be available…. > > Not really the best of ideas > > Suggest a better way? Maybe you should try to avoid generating the spec? at least, not the 'buildrequires' section? (so it would be usable to extract the requirements even if some sections of it will be changed later by autotools/make/whatever)