On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 12:30 AM, Honza Horak <hho...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 02/27/2016 09:57 PM, Dave Johansen wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Dave Johansen <davejohan...@gmail.com >> <mailto:davejohan...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Dave Johansen >> <davejohan...@gmail.com <mailto:davejohan...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Honza Horak <hho...@redhat.com >> <mailto:hho...@redhat.com>> wrote: >> >> On 01/13/2016 05:14 AM, Dave Johansen wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Honza Horak >> <hho...@redhat.com <mailto:hho...@redhat.com> >> <mailto:hho...@redhat.com <mailto:hho...@redhat.com>>> >> wrote: >> >> On 01/06/2016 05:41 PM, Dave Johansen wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 8:04 AM, Honza Horak >> <hho...@redhat.com <mailto:hho...@redhat.com> >> <mailto:hho...@redhat.com >> <mailto:hho...@redhat.com>> >> <mailto:hho...@redhat.com >> <mailto:hho...@redhat.com> <mailto:hho...@redhat.com >> <mailto:hho...@redhat.com>>>> wrote: >> >> On 01/05/2016 04:35 PM, Dave Johansen wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Honza >> Horak >> <hho...@redhat.com <mailto:hho...@redhat.com> >> <mailto:hho...@redhat.com <mailto:hho...@redhat.com>> >> <mailto:hho...@redhat.com >> <mailto:hho...@redhat.com> <mailto:hho...@redhat.com >> <mailto:hho...@redhat.com>>> >> <mailto:hho...@redhat.com >> <mailto:hho...@redhat.com> <mailto:hho...@redhat.com >> <mailto:hho...@redhat.com>> >> <mailto:hho...@redhat.com >> <mailto:hho...@redhat.com> <mailto:hho...@redhat.com >> <mailto:hho...@redhat.com>>>>> wrote: >> >> Interesting, you're first who >> asks for that. >> Currently, >> there is >> nobody working on it. >> >> >> We're working on moving to EL 7, but >> still need to >> support EL 6 >> installations. We'd also like to start >> allowing use of >> C++11 in >> our code >> base and using the same version of gcc >> on both EL 6 and >> 7 seemed >> like >> the best way to accomplish both of >> these goals. >> >> If you're willing to try that, I >> wouldn't be >> against, I >> just must >> warn you that rebuilding >> devtoolset is always a >> lot of fun >> (like >> >> https://www.redhat.com/archives/sclorg/2015-December/msg00050.html).. >> >> >> What's the best way to start this? >> Are there modifications that are >> required for source >> .rpm (removing >> RedHat naming, etc)? Or is it just >> start building it >> and dealing >> with >> the issues that pop up? >> >> >> There is no need to remove any naming, we >> usually take srpm >> from RH >> and rebuild. However, the bootstrapping is >> usually very >> challenging. >> I'd recommend first to try to rebuild at >> least basic packages >> yourself using mock (or copr), so you see >> how far you can get.. >> Then, if you'll see it is worth the work, >> we can create >> tags/targets >> in CBS and start with real rebuilds. >> >> >> I was just going to start playing around with >> this on COPR and I >> noticed >> that there appears to already be an existing >> build of devtoolset-2: >> https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/rhscl/devtoolset/ >> >> It looks like it's not complete because only >> some of the packages >> succeeded, but would that serve as the best >> starting point? If so, >> what's the best way to move forward with that? >> >> >> Well, why not, I can add you as collaborator in >> this project -- what >> is your copr username? However, I'm afraid that >> whoever tried that, >> he got blocked on some non easy issues, which is >> the reason why it >> is not finished. >> >> >> My username is daveisfera. >> >> >> Well, I've realized the copr is not named devtoolset-2, but >> just devtoolset, which is not ideal.. and renaming is not >> possible in copr.. maybe it would be better if you'd create >> your own copr, which has correct name.. >> >> Is there anything special that needs to be done to do >> these builds? >> >> >> Honestly, I don't know what is necessary to fix the builds, >> but since they were failing, I expect something would need >> to be fixed. >> >> Is there an original location for the source rpms? And >> is this COPR use >> those or some modification of them? >> >> >> The sources are available here: >> >> http://ftp.redhat.com/redhat/linux/enterprise/6Server/en/RHDevToolset/SRPMS/ >> >> >> It looks like the source .rpm for felix-gogo-parent is missing. >> What needs to happen for that to be added? >> >> >> Also, it appears that some of them depend on maven plugins that >> aren't available: >> >> https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/daveisfera/devtoolset2/epel-6-x86_64/00163449-devtoolset-2-apache-commons-codec/root.log.gz >> What can be done to resolve that? >> >> >> It looks like the maven packages are supposed to come from the maven >> SCL, so never mind about that. On a related note, the odd thing is that >> some of the apache-common packages are in the devtoolset SCL and other >> are in maven SCL. It just seems kind of odd to be broken up that way, >> but whatever works I guess. >> >> So, the only real issue seems to be the missing source .rpm for >> felix-gogo-parent. >> > > Do you think sources from devtoolset-3 could be used? > > https://github.com/sclorg-distgit/felix-gogo-parent/tree/sig-sclo6-devtoolset-3-rh > I'm guessing that would probably work, but isn't making the source available that was used to build devtoolset-2 required to satisfy the license?
_______________________________________________ SCLorg mailing list SCLorg@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/sclorg
