EL6 support in RPM Fusion buildsys ready

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 30.11.2010 04:21, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2010, at 11:16 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> On 28.11.2010 12:45, solarflow99 wrote:
>>> On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 3:18 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora at leemhuis.info> wrote:
>>>> On 28.11.2010 11:51, solarflow99 wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 2:38 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora at leemhuis.info> wrote:
>>>>>> Just FYI, building RPM Fusion packages for EL6 is possible now. Guess
>>>>>> there will be a few rough edges here and there, so keep the eyes open
>>>>>> and report any problems.
>>>>> oh good, do you know if we have an EL-5 build system?  There's no
>>>>> rush, but I noticed my package in waiting status.
>>>> Note that problems in our build infrastructure (like this) are one of
>>>> the main reasons why I'm really unhappy about the state of RPM Fusion
>>>> and want to have a break (see the other mail I just sent).
>>>> This case for me boils down to: There are people that are supposed to
>>>> take care about the build infrastructure and they are obviously not
>>>> doing their work. Please ask them, not me, as I multiple times made
>>>> clear that I don't want to do the administration of our build infra. In
>>>> case you don't get satisfying results within a few days then ask me
>>>> again please and I'll see what I can do to get a EL-5 builder running again.
>>> ok, and if there's something I can help you out with just let me know,
>>> rpmfusion has always been short staffed, so we have to do the best we
>>> can I suppose.  I'm willing to help where I can.
>>
>> The direct problems at hand: The only x86 builder that is left has no
>> local CentOS/RHEL mirror; the admin of this machine might be able to
>> create one in the local net on the machine where other repos are
>> mirrored.
> Screw it, why not. I'm rsync'ing down the CentOS 5.5 trees right now.

/me makes a note to set up the builder this WE if nobody else indicates
to do it

> Nb: the el6 trees on my builder are restricted to local access only,
> as they're true-blue (er, red?) RHEL6 GA trees.

Noticed that.

> We should switch
> probably switch to CentOS 6 once its available. Also, the configs
> will likely also need to point at the optional trees to pick up an
> array of additional BuildReqs for a lot of things.

I did only configure the Workstation and the server tree for now and
thought we can take care of the other stuff once it's needed.

But yes, CentOS6 is likely the best in the long term.

> [...]

CU
knurd