Re: %forgemeta scm retrieval & expansion on COPR fails to populate tarball. also appears to select unspecified/wrong chroot version ?
On 6/25/20 10:08 AM, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
breaks -- specifically on COPR? _either_ form seems to be ok with rpmbuild -- locally.
Good question. I don't think so, but I didn't get to more deep observation yet.
Have you tried to put `%define _disable_source_fetch 0` into your ~/.rpmmacros, and then put %undefine into the spec, and is it still working? (copr isn't doing anything else).
nope ... I can give it a whirl. tho' not clear on what that tells me, or why it might be a 'solution'
i'll change it in my spec in any case.
Good, just let me know it is OK.
k
iiuc then, this needs to be fixed in online COPR before this'll work?
We need to fix copr so it works with the %undefine variant, yes. At least if it is valid configuration. I did not check the semantics of the macros across distro versions, but what makes you think that "undefining" the macro is equivalent to allow "download random spec-requested blobs from the internet"?
initially, while scrounging around trying to _not_ have to manually use spectool 1st, these:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/33177450/how-do-i-get-rpmbuild-to-downlo...
https://jmahler.github.io/linux/2018/06/28/fedora_package_development.html
https://gitlab.cern.ch/eos/eos-folly/commit/e213d77fa90019b17d5d56830156302a...
not saying those are right/reliable, just frequent -- and what was found.
i've been working with Fedora for a whopping 3-4 days now; a bit challenging at 1st to find thorough docs / examples on this^
and of course, the 'migration' isn't, atm, helping get at useful info ...
On Thursday, June 25, 2020 7:30:26 PM CEST PGNet Dev wrote:
On 6/25/20 10:08 AM, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
breaks -- specifically on COPR? _either_ form seems to be ok with rpmbuild -- locally.
Good question. I don't think so, but I didn't get to more deep observation yet.
Have you tried to put `%define _disable_source_fetch 0` into your ~/.rpmmacros, and then put %undefine into the spec, and is it still working? (copr isn't doing anything else).
nope ... I can give it a whirl. tho' not clear on what that tells me, or why it might be a 'solution'
That may answer the question if that is Copr problem, package problem or rpm problem. It looks like RPM problem to some extent to me, so I filled: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1851238
Speaking of solutions, either don't %undefine the macro at all (remove the line), or re-define it to 0.
i'll change it in my spec in any case.
Good, just let me know it is OK.
k
iiuc then, this needs to be fixed in online COPR before this'll work?
We need to fix copr so it works with the %undefine variant, yes. At least if it is valid configuration. I did not check the semantics of the macros across distro versions, but what makes you think that "undefining" the macro is equivalent to allow "download random spec-requested blobs from the internet"?
initially, while scrounging around trying to _not_ have to manually use spectool 1st, these:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/33177450/how-do-i-get-rpmbuild-to-downlo...
https://jmahler.github.io/linux/2018/06/28/fedora_package_development.html
https://gitlab.cern.ch/eos/eos-folly/commit/e213d77fa90019b17d5d56830156302a...
not saying those are right/reliable, just frequent -- and what was found.
And since this is pretty common use case, copr already sets correct default _disable_source_fetch to 0 for the users who upload plain spec files.
Things should work out of box, but googling this problem actually guided you to broken use-case, you found a corner case. Let's wait for 1851238 resolution.
Pavel
i've been working with Fedora for a whopping 3-4 days now; a bit challenging at 1st to find thorough docs / examples on this^
and of course, the 'migration' isn't, atm, helping get at useful info ...
On 6/25/20 2:04 PM, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
nope ... I can give it a whirl. tho' not clear on what that tells me, or why it might be a 'solution'
That may answer the question if that is Copr problem, package problem or rpm problem. It looks like RPM problem to some extent to me, so I filled: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1851238
thanks, subscribed.
Speaking of solutions, either don't %undefine the macro at all (remove the line), or re-define it to 0.
i'll change it in my spec in any case.
Good, just let me know it is OK.
done, in other followup email
Things should work out of box, but googling this problem actually guided you to broken use-case, you found a corner case. Let's wait for 1851238 resolution.
+1
o/
copr-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
-
Pavel Raiskup -
PGNet Dev