Dear all,
A new fedora-review is being brought to you. With this new version you can find: - Checks for Ruby packages (incomplete, but started) - Checks for PHP packages (incomplete, but started) - Better handling of the sources (handled now directly through rpm) - Generate all review-related files in a subdirectory - Add provides/requires to review template - New report layout - Support for different bugzilla - Support for pre-built RPMs - Possibility to exclude (-x) a test - Possibility to run a single (-s) test - A number of bugs fixed
And many more!
We would like to take this opportunity to thanks : Alec Leamas (who has done the major part of this release) Michael Scherer Gregor Tätzner Christof Damian Ralph Bean Bohuslav Kabrda Toshio Kuratomi who have joined our fearless team of developers and of course thanks to all the people that brought us food^cbug reports and RFE.
Finally, for those of you that would like to see what's going on, feel free to join the mailing-list: https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/fedorareview
And because they need karma, the announced updates: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fedora-review-0.2.0-1.fc17 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fedora-review-0.2.0-1.fc16
Enjoy!
Stanislav & Pierre
Hello,
I tried to use fedora-review and it seems to attempt building the package using Fedora 14?
from root.log
rootdir = /var/lib/mock/fedora-14-x86_64/root/
Is that intentional? A mis-configuration on my part?
On 07/11/2012 11:23 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
Dear all,
A new fedora-review is being brought to you. With this new version you can find:
- Checks for Ruby packages (incomplete, but started)
- Checks for PHP packages (incomplete, but started)
- Better handling of the sources (handled now directly through rpm)
- Generate all review-related files in a subdirectory
- Add provides/requires to review template
- New report layout
- Support for different bugzilla
- Support for pre-built RPMs
- Possibility to exclude (-x) a test
- Possibility to run a single (-s) test
- A number of bugs fixed
And many more!
We would like to take this opportunity to thanks : Alec Leamas (who has done the major part of this release) Michael Scherer Gregor Tätzner Christof Damian Ralph Bean Bohuslav Kabrda Toshio Kuratomi who have joined our fearless team of developers and of course thanks to all the people that brought us food^cbug reports and RFE.
Finally, for those of you that would like to see what's going on, feel free to join the mailing-list: https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/fedorareview
And because they need karma, the announced updates: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fedora-review-0.2.0-1.fc17 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fedora-review-0.2.0-1.fc16
Enjoy!
Stanislav & Pierre
On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 13:14 -0600, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
Hello,
I tried to use fedora-review and it seems to attempt building the package using Fedora 14?
from root.log
rootdir = /var/lib/mock/fedora-14-x86_64/root/
Is that intentional? A mis-configuration on my part?
You may want to check your ~/.config/fedora-review file and see if there is something wrong there.
Pierre
Thanks Pierre,
Unfortunately there is no such file .config/fedora-review there is however a .config/fedora-create-review.
On 07/19/2012 01:12 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 13:14 -0600, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
Hello,
I tried to use fedora-review and it seems to attempt building thepackage using Fedora 14?
from root.log
rootdir = /var/lib/mock/fedora-14-x86_64/root/
Is that intentional? A mis-configuration on my part?
You may want to check your ~/.config/fedora-review file and see if there is something wrong there.
Pierre
On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 13:20 -0600, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
Thanks Pierre,
Unfortunately there is no such file .config/fedora-review there is however a .config/fedora-create-review.
I went a little bit too fast, the file is ~/.config/fedora-review/settings
Pierre
On 07/19/2012 01:12 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 13:14 -0600, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
Hello,
I tried to use fedora-review and it seems to attempt building thepackage using Fedora 14?
from root.log
rootdir = /var/lib/mock/fedora-14-x86_64/root/
Is that intentional? A mis-configuration on my part?
You may want to check your ~/.config/fedora-review file and see if there is something wrong there.
Pierre
-- Nathanael d. Noblet t 403.875.4613
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 07/19/2012 09:22 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 13:20 -0600, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
Thanks Pierre,
Unfortunately there is no such file .config/fedora-review there is however a .config/fedora-create-review.
I went a little bit too fast, the file is ~/.config/fedora-review/settings
Pierre
On 07/19/2012 01:12 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 13:14 -0600, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
Hello,
I tried to use fedora-review and it seems to attempt building thepackage using Fedora 14?
from root.log
rootdir = /var/lib/mock/fedora-14-x86_64/root/
Is that intentional? A mis-configuration on my part?
You may want to check your ~/.config/fedora-review file and see if there is something wrong there.
Pierre
The new version is supposed to use the default mock setting in /etc/mock/default.cfg i. e., it uses the same configuration as mock without a specific -r argument. LInk /etc/mock/default.cfg to the configuration you want to build for, or give appropriate --mock-config option to fedora-review.
Or, God forbid, file a bug :)
--alec
Where would you like bug reports?
I tried it against one of my own review tickets. It found a number of issues however almost all of them except one was wrong.
For example it complained of no clean section with a rm -rf %{buildroot} which the specfile contained, same message except in the install section etc.
To try it out yourself try it against bug 841662
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 23:52 -0600, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
Where would you like bug reports?
I tried it against one of my own review tickets. It found a number of issues however almost all of them except one was wrong.
For example it complained of no clean section with a rm -rf %{buildroot} which the specfile contained, same message except in the install section etc.
Are you sure it wasn't complaining that the specfile actually contained those lines?
The Fedora guidelines say those lines are not needed, and shouldn't be there for new packages, unless the package maintainer wants to ensure compatibility with EPEL 5.
So that's what Fedora Review (usually, I haven't tried for your specific review) reports.
On 08/02/2012 12:02 AM, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 23:52 -0600, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
Where would you like bug reports?
I tried it against one of my own review tickets. It found a number of issues however almost all of them except one was wrong.
For example it complained of no clean section with a rm -rf %{buildroot} which the specfile contained, same message except in the install section etc.
Are you sure it wasn't complaining that the specfile actually contained those lines?
The Fedora guidelines say those lines are not needed, and shouldn't be there for new packages, unless the package maintainer wants to ensure compatibility with EPEL 5.
Hmm I guess I mis-read it then.
[!]: MUST Buildroot is not present [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install
When I read that, the ! tells me I failed that. So Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} at the beginning of %install. I think the double negative there is what threw me. I think putting the MUST part into the actual description would help. For example
[!] Package MUST NOT run rm -rf %{buildroot} ...
Clearly tells me that I failed that because I am running the rm command. Whereas a MUST preceding the line and the failure can be interpreted as I failed because the package does not run rm -rf ... Not sure if you see what I mean. Now that it is pointed out it does make more sense.
Thoughts? Is it just me that read that totally wrong?
On Thu, 2012-08-02 at 08:23 -0600, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
On 08/02/2012 12:02 AM, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 23:52 -0600, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
Where would you like bug reports?
I tried it against one of my own review tickets. It found a number of issues however almost all of them except one was wrong.
For example it complained of no clean section with a rm -rf %{buildroot} which the specfile contained, same message except in the install section etc.
Are you sure it wasn't complaining that the specfile actually contained those lines?
The Fedora guidelines say those lines are not needed, and shouldn't be there for new packages, unless the package maintainer wants to ensure compatibility with EPEL 5.
Hmm I guess I mis-read it then.
[!]: MUST Buildroot is not present [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install
When I read that, the ! tells me I failed that. So Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} at the beginning of %install. I think the double negative there is what threw me. I think putting the MUST part into the actual description would help. For example
[!] Package MUST NOT run rm -rf %{buildroot} ...
Clearly tells me that I failed that because I am running the rm command. Whereas a MUST preceding the line and the failure can be interpreted as I failed because the package does not run rm -rf ... Not sure if you see what I mean. Now that it is pointed out it does make more sense.
Thoughts? Is it just me that read that totally wrong?
Maybe it would be better formulated as: [!]: MUST: Buildroot MUST NOT be present (NOTE: this is not true for EPEL5) [!]: MUST: Package MUST NOT run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install
What do you think?
Pierre
On 08/02/2012 08:29 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
Maybe it would be better formulated as: [!]: MUST: Buildroot MUST NOT be present (NOTE: this is not true for EPEL5) [!]: MUST: Package MUST NOT run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install
What do you think?
That would definitely be clearer to me.
On 08/02/2012 03:36 PM, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
On 08/02/2012 08:29 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
Maybe it would be better formulated as: [!]: MUST: Buildroot MUST NOT be present (NOTE: this is not true for EPEL5) [!]: MUST: Package MUST NOT run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install
What do you think?
That would definitely be clearer to me.
Where is the guideline that says (as a MUST) that buildroot definition and cleaning must not be done (except for EPEL5)?
The packaging guidelines page (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag) just says that it's not needed to define the buildroot from F-10, which is hardly a MUST; the only related MUST is that it MUST be defined for EPEL-5.
Similarly, buildroot cleaning (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean) is listed as not required from F-13.
Leaving these in may enable a single spec to be used for all branches, including EPEL-5 if there aren't other reasons why a package wouldn't build on such an old distro, in which case it's harmless and advantageous to leave those in. I think the wording should reflect that these things are just redundant in modern distros and may be removed, but drop the MUST label.
Paul.
Quoting Paul Howarth (2012-08-02 16:46:39)
On 08/02/2012 03:36 PM, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
On 08/02/2012 08:29 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
Maybe it would be better formulated as: [!]: MUST: Buildroot MUST NOT be present (NOTE: this is not true for EPEL5) [!]: MUST: Package MUST NOT run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install
What do you think?
That would definitely be clearer to me.
Where is the guideline that says (as a MUST) that buildroot definition and cleaning must not be done (except for EPEL5)?
Just FYI this (and many other) bugs have been fixed in 0.2.2 release (currently on way to updates-testing[1,2])
[1] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fedora-review-0.2.2-1.fc16 [2] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fedora-review-0.2.2-1.fc17
On 07/11/2012 06:23 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
Dear all,
A new fedora-review is being brought to you.
For me it fails like this:
$ fedora-review -v -n octave-odepkg Exception down the road... Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/review_helper.py", line 115, in run Settings.init() File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/settings.py", line 188, in init _check_mock_grp() File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/settings.py", line 105, in _check_mock_grp raise ConfigError('No mock group - mock not installed?') ConfigError: 'Configuration error: No mock group - mock not installed?' Exception down the road...
It would be nice at least to get the error without having to pass the -v. :-)
The problem is that $ cat /etc/group | grep mock mock:x:989:jamatos
So I have no idea about what it is wrong here. :-)
On 08/02/2012 06:15 PM, José Matos wrote:
On 07/11/2012 06:23 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
Dear all,
A new fedora-review is being brought to you.
For me it fails like this:
$ fedora-review -v -n octave-odepkg Exception down the road... Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/review_helper.py", line 115, in run Settings.init() File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/settings.py", line 188, in init _check_mock_grp() File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/settings.py", line 105, in _check_mock_grp raise ConfigError('No mock group - mock not installed?') ConfigError: 'Configuration error: No mock group - mock not installed?' Exception down the road...
It would be nice at least to get the error without having to pass the -v. :-)
The problem is that $ cat /etc/group | grep mock mock:x:989:jamatos
So I have no idea about what it is wrong here. :-)
Have you just have created this group? If so, try to use 'newgrp' before running f-r. Or log out, and login again. Basically, a new group is not effective until a new login shell is created.
If still in problems, ~/.cache/fedopra-review.log might give some more hints.
See also https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/ticket/78 for a more complete and somewhat confused discussion on a similar (same?) problem
-
Alec Leamas -
José Abílio Matos -
Mathieu Bridon -
Nathanael D. Noblet -
Paul Howarth -
Pierre-Yves Chibon -
Stanislav Ochotnicky