Red Hat Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
|Summary:||Fedora Extras: Package Review Request: buildos|
|Product:||[Fedora] Fedora||Reporter:||Prarit Bhargava <prarit>|
|Component:||Package Review||Assignee:||John Mahowald <jpmahowald>|
|Status:||CLOSED NOTABUG||QA Contact:||Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review>|
|Version:||rawhide||CC:||anil.s.keshavamurthy, fedora-package-review, notting|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2007-05-27 08:34:36 EDT||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Bug Depends On:|
|Bug Blocks:||201449, 205617|
Description Prarit Bhargava 2006-09-07 13:15:59 EDT
The buildos RPM is a script I wrote a while back as a wrapper to anaconda to quickly build new OS distros. The script executes the createrepo and the buildinstall commands, as well as building a DVD or CD distribution. buildos SRPM attached.
Comment 2 Prarit Bhargava 2006-09-07 13:18:25 EDT
I tested this out on ppc, ppc64, i386, i686, x86_64, and ia64 arches. P.
Comment 3 Bill Nottingham 2006-09-07 13:27:30 EDT
*** Bug 205617 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 4 Jesse Keating 2006-09-07 13:40:33 EDT
I'd rather see this in Extras space, and if you go the extras route, you can get it available for FC6.
Comment 5 Doug Chapman 2006-09-08 14:54:31 EDT
Prarit, FYI, the help for buildos shows an argument called --productversion however the code appears to actually use --version.
Comment 6 Prarit Bhargava 2006-09-11 10:43:09 EDT
Created attachment 135995 [details] source rpm Added new source rpm that fixes the issue dchapman raised.
Comment 8 John Mahowald 2007-05-26 15:51:34 EDT
This still has a use even with pungi available? This is one bash script and is not arch dependent, make it BuildArch: noarch. Which will also get rid of the empty debuginfo problem. I think it would be good practice to Require the things it uses, so people can install it and have it just work. anaconda, anaconda-runtime, createrepo, and mkisofs come to mind. There is no URL or Source URL in the spec. I assume this srpm is the sources of this thing. Does this have a version number? The rpm says 1.0.0 but the only version in the sources, in the comment of the script, is 0.7. %files needs a %defattr statement.
Comment 9 Prarit Bhargava 2007-05-27 08:34:36 EDT
No longer an issue -- jkeating's pungi does all of this. P.
Comment 10 Patrice Dumas 2007-05-27 12:20:31 EDT
Duplicate functionality is not an blocking issue -- but sure decreases the incentive to submit and maintain a package.