[WBEL-devel] Heads up on RHEL Update2 Beta

[John Morris]

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004, Milan [iso-8859-2] Ker¹lįger wrote:

> There are the same problems with packages like in "fresh installed"
> system (needs to be builded as non-root etc). When building no package
> should need access to master system. If you have a problem with grub,
> try to (re)install package in chroot with --noscripts --notriggers.

I had problems with grub while rescueing a system.  Commands like du and
mount are unreliable at best in a chroot environment because of lack of
access to the real mtab file and and /proc and grub-install needs those.
Hopefully few if any packages need access to that sort of system details
to compile.


> There are few broken packages in x86_64 and you need to handle them even
> you don't use chroot (wrong autodetection in configure etc so you will
> need sometimes to install glibc.i386 package and sometimes you will need
> to remove it, but safe is to have plain x86_64 tree except for
> exceptions). Chroot is about
> I-do-not-need-to-reinstall-system-many-times. It simply save your time
> when you are know what you are doing and does not need to sit behind
> building machine and walking through installation process again and
> again.

Oh joy of joys!  Sounds like this is going to be loads of fun and I'm 
going to get sliced up good on the bleeding edge of Linux evolution.  So 
long as I can manage to actually get a correctly functioning build it will 
be a good learning experience.

> If you underestand this, you will leave current packages as-are-now, add
> U2 like others errata, don't make 3.1 and only respin ISOs to save time
> for downloaders.

Wasn't planning on rebuilding every package, but was thinking of having a 
3.1 tree until I thought it through and realized I didn't have to, so long 
as I make darned sure any package which differs from 3.0 is in the errata 
directory, up2date shouldn't get confused.

> There is really no reason to have 3.1 because 3.0+updates = 3.1 (so
> there is no difference and no need to bump version except confuse
> non-experienced users who will try to "upgrade").

Well I have to call it something, and I don't really like U2, especially
since I didn't issue a formal U1 and anyway, this really smells like a
point release (new functionality like OO.o 1.1 instead of just bug fixes)  
so might as well call it one.

> This is not easy like this because scripts (i tryed this already). The
> safer method is to install minimal system, use tar for backup (except
> /proc and the directory where you are putting backup). Then transfer to
> build system, extract, chroot to new tree, mkdir /proc, mount /proc and
> /dev/pts and then run yum (to update system and installl the rest) by
> using something like this:

Obviously I haven't used chroot enough.  Didn't realize you could mount
/proc and /dev/pts multiple times inside chrooted environments. That
changes a few things.  Going to start playing with some of this stuff now
that I have enough drive space to toss a few complete trees around.

-- 
John M.      http://www.beau.org/~jmorris        This post is 100% M$ Free!
Geekcode 3.1:GCS C+++ UL++++$ P++ L+++ W++ w--- Y++ b++ 5+++ R tv- e* r