Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 5/8] raisin: Fix CentOS build

[Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 20 Apr 2015, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 04/17/2015 11:14 AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Apr 2015, George Dunlap wrote:
> >> Add package dependencies for CentOS.  Also use PKGTYPE rather than
> >> DISTRO to determine if we need rpm-build.
> >>
> >> I've tested this for xen but not for libvirt or grub.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> CC: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >>  components/grub    |  5 +++++
> >>  components/libvirt |  7 +++++++
> >>  components/xen     | 10 ++++++++--
> >>  lib/commands.sh    |  2 +-
> >>  4 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/components/grub b/components/grub
> >> index 563a28c..af396d9 100644
> >> --- a/components/grub
> >> +++ b/components/grub
> >> @@ -12,6 +12,11 @@ function grub_check_package() {
> >>      local DEP_Fedora_x86_32="$DEP_Fedora_common"
> >>      local DEP_Fedora_x86_64="$DEP_Fedora_common glibc-devel.i686"
> >>  
> >> +    local DEP_CentOS_common="make gcc tar automake autoconf sysconftool 
> >> bison flex \
> >> +                             glibc-devel"
> >> +    local DEP_CentOS_x86_32="$DEP_CentOS_common"
> >> +    local DEP_CentOS_x86_64="$DEP_CentOS_common glibc-devel.i686"
> > 
> > Given that they are the same as Fedora, I think it is OK to:
> > 
> > local DEP_CentOS_common="$DEP_Fedora_common"
> 
> In a previous version of the patch I had
> "DEP_RedHat_{common,x86_32,x86_64}" (to mean things that were common
> between all RH decendants, like Fedora or CentOS); but I couldn't make
> the include stuff work properly.  Maybe just have a DEP_RedHat_common,
> and allow the x86-specific ones to include it?

But from the look of your patch the list of dependencies at the moment
is exactly the same between Fedora and CentOS, so I would avoid
DEP_RedHat_{common,x86_32,x86_64}, I would just local
DEP_CentOS_common="$DEP_Fedora_common".


> >>  
> >>      if [[ $ARCH != "x86_64" && $ARCH != "x86_32" ]]
> >>      then
> >> diff --git a/components/libvirt b/components/libvirt
> >> index 5853950..aef1bc8 100644
> >> --- a/components/libvirt
> >> +++ b/components/libvirt
> >> @@ -18,6 +18,13 @@ function libvirt_check_package() {
> >>      local DEP_Fedora_x86_32="$DEP_Fedora_common"
> >>      local DEP_Fedora_x86_64="$DEP_Fedora_common"
> >>  
> >> +    local DEP_CentOS_common="patch make gcc libtool autoconf 
> >> gettext-devel     \
> >> +                             python-devel libxslt yajl-devel 
> >> libxml2-devel     \
> >> +                             device-mapper-devel libpciaccess-devel       
> >>      \
> >> +                             libuuid-devel perl-XML-XPath"
> >> +    local DEP_CentOS_x86_32="$DEP_CentOS_common"
> >> +    local DEP_CentOS_x86_64="$DEP_CentOS_common"
> > 
> > Same here, also please test the libvirt build: the list of dependencies
> > is pretty big, I worry that one of them might actually differ from Fedora
> 
> If there were something missing, it wouldn't be a regression (since
> libvirt doesn't apply without this patch either).  Testing libvirt is on
> my to-do list, but if I don't get to it, would you mind checking it in
> as-is (once the series is in better shape)?  I'll definitely get libvirt
> working before the release.

Having the code in will give the impression that it works already, so I
am not very happy about this, but OK.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel