FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 10-16-2008, 02:41 PM
"Richard W.M. Jones"
 
Default review-o-matic : Fedora package review helper

On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 06:09:48PM +0530, Kushal Das wrote:
> Build the package in mock

Could it submit the package to Koji? Always nice to know it builds on
ppc/ppc64.

> verify the md5sum of upstream source matches what is in the srpm
> <your ideas here>

Essentially every package guideline which (a) isn't already done by
rpmlint, and (b) can feasibly be checked automatically, should be
checked.

> Workflow:

I've long thought that rpmbuild should have an option to run test
tools on the generated packages. Particularly rpmlint, but your
review tool is another candidate.

rpmbuild --test=rpmlint -ba foo.spec

Maybe rpmbuild can actually do this with one of its myriad macros?

Rich.

--
Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines. Tiny program with many
powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc.
http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-17-2008, 03:14 PM
"Chris Weyl"
 
Default review-o-matic : Fedora package review helper

On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 5:39 AM, Kushal Das <kushaldas@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi all,



I am starting a project called review-o-matic which will do reviews of

Fedora packages based on discussions at

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2008-October/msg00023.html.

We know of having couple of scripts being used by different people to

do so, but this tool's target is to consolidate those efforts and add

a number of additional features as well. The basic idea is to remove

the grunt work from package reviews.


Cool. Apparently I didn't mention it there, but I've already started work on a base implementation.* I'm curious how you're intending to do this -- perhaps there's room for collaboration?

**************************************** -Chris
--
Chris Weyl
Ex astris, scientia


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-17-2008, 03:27 PM
Chuck Anderson
 
Default review-o-matic : Fedora package review helper

On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 08:14:31AM -0700, Chris Weyl wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 5:39 AM, Kushal Das <kushaldas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I am starting a project called review-o-matic which will do reviews of
> > Fedora packages based on discussions at
> > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2008-October/msg00023.html
> > .
> > We know of having couple of scripts being used by different people to
> > do so, but this tool's target is to consolidate those efforts and add
> > a number of additional features as well. The basic idea is to remove
> > the grunt work from package reviews.
> >
>
> Cool. Apparently I didn't mention it there, but I've already started work on
> a base implementation. I'm curious how you're intending to do this --
> perhaps there's room for collaboration?

It would be great if some effort could also be spent extending rpmlint
itself to handle most of these things. Why implement a new tool when
we have one already?

Also, we need to document somewhere what review items are checked by
rpmlint. Last time I did a review, I tried to figure out which of the
items on the Packging Guidelines were checked by rpmlint, even going
as far to check the source code, but gave up in frustration. It is
redundant to give rpmlint output, and then still have to report on
every review guideline--even ones that the lack of rpmlint output
implies.

Furthermore, since the Packaging Guidelines can change, it would help
if they were versioned in some way so that rpmlint could refer to
which version of the guidelines it is following.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-17-2008, 04:10 PM
"Chris Weyl"
 
Default review-o-matic : Fedora package review helper

On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 8:27 AM, Chuck Anderson <cra@wpi.edu> wrote:



It would be great if some effort could also be spent extending rpmlint

itself to handle most of these things. *Why implement a new tool when

we have one already?
rpmlint is quite the useful tool -- however, much as we wouldn't extend ls to email a directory listing, submitting koji scratch builds and posting results to bugzilla is probably a bit out of scope for it :-)


********************************* -Chris
--
Chris Weyl
Ex astris, scientia


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-17-2008, 05:03 PM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default review-o-matic : Fedora package review helper

On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 11:27:35AM -0400, Chuck Anderson wrote:
>
> It would be great if some effort could also be spent extending rpmlint
> itself to handle most of these things. Why implement a new tool when
> we have one already?
>
> Furthermore, since the Packaging Guidelines can change, it would help
> if they were versioned in some way so that rpmlint could refer to
> which version of the guidelines it is following.

Unless I am wrong, rpmlint is not a checked for fedora package
guidelines, it is distribution agnostic, simply a tool for checking
common errors in rpm packages.

--
Pat

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-17-2008, 06:07 PM
Jason L Tibbitts III
 
Default review-o-matic : Fedora package review helper

>>>>> "PD" == Patrice Dumas <pertusus@free.fr> writes:

PD> Unless I am wrong, rpmlint is not a checked for fedora package
PD> guidelines, it is distribution agnostic, simply a tool for
PD> checking common errors in rpm packages.

Well, Ville does update (or patch, I'm not sure) our rpmlint to
correspond to our guidelines. For example, verification of the
License: tag matches exactly the licenses from
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing and the syntax rules in
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines (module
any delay in getting updates to those pages propagated into the code).

- J<

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-17-2008, 07:00 PM
Ville Skyttä
 
Default review-o-matic : Fedora package review helper

On Friday 17 October 2008, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >>>>> "PD" == Patrice Dumas <pertusus@free.fr> writes:
>
> PD> Unless I am wrong, rpmlint is not a checked for fedora package
> PD> guidelines, it is distribution agnostic, simply a tool for
> PD> checking common errors in rpm packages.
>
> Well, Ville does update (or patch, I'm not sure) our rpmlint to
> correspond to our guidelines. For example, verification of the
> License: tag matches exactly the licenses from
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing and the syntax rules in
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines (module
> any delay in getting updates to those pages propagated into the code).

That's right. If necessary, we'll patch rpmlint in Fedora for Fedora needs,
but I'd much rather make changes upstream.

The good thing is that a lot of the changes we've historically made in Fedora
rpmlint have been found desirable in rpmlint upstream as well - other distros
have found them useful too. Compared to vanilla upstream, we currently have
only two patches (one of which could actually be applicable upstream) and our
own config in the Fedora package. The license checks are a good example of
this (and to give credit where it's due, it was spot who implemented them) -
the code to check stuff is upstream and we just maintain the list of
Fedora-approved license identifiers in config files in the Fedora package.

I'm sure that there are a lot of things that are not at all Fedora specific
that rpmlint doesn't currently check but very well could. Please do send
patches either to Bugzilla or upstream rpmlint Trac, or just file RFE's
(these usually preferably in upstream Trac) in case you have good ideas but
no code yet.

The two things I'd like people to keep in mind when submitting rpmlint RFE's
are that 1) ideally checks should be made as generic as feasible so we can
maintain them upstream (but that doesn't have to prevent submitting entirely
Fedora specific ones in Bugzilla), and 2) apart from some very specific
checks on installed packages, the unit of work for rpmlint is one package.
I'm not aware of any plans to change that (nor do I really know if it'd be a
good direction for rpmlint), so some RFE's/bug reports may be rejected if
getting them done would require knowledge of other packages than the one
currently being checked. Good patches are of course one way to change
that

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-18-2008, 10:27 AM
"Richard W.M. Jones"
 
Default review-o-matic : Fedora package review helper

On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 10:00:35PM +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> I'm sure that there are a lot of things that are not at all Fedora specific
> that rpmlint doesn't currently check but very well could. Please do send
> patches either to Bugzilla or upstream rpmlint Trac, or just file RFE's
> (these usually preferably in upstream Trac) in case you have good ideas but
> no code yet.

If I want rpmbuild to run rpmlint automatically on the packages that
rpmbuild makes, that would be a RFE/patch against rpm, right?

Rich.

--
Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-p2v converts physical machines to virtual machines. Boot with a
live CD or over the network (PXE) and turn machines into Xen guests.
http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-p2v

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-18-2008, 03:16 PM
"Kushal Das"
 
Default review-o-matic : Fedora package review helper

2008/10/16 Paul W. Frields <stickster@gmail.com>:
> Would a koji scratch-build work for this purpose?
>
I have a very initial stage of code up and running which is taking
bugzilla numbers manually (due to limited speed of network). Currently
only doing koji builds and if successful then rpmlint on resultant
rpms. It is also commenting back to the bugzilla entries.

Bugs done like:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450527
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460974

Rakesh and Debarshi are going to start up bits to do spec file sanity
checking (fedora-qa script will help here).

Kushal
--
http://fedoraproject.org
http://kushaldas.in


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-18-2008, 05:29 PM
Ville Skyttä
 
Default review-o-matic : Fedora package review helper

On Saturday 18 October 2008, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 10:00:35PM +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> > I'm sure that there are a lot of things that are not at all Fedora
> > specific that rpmlint doesn't currently check but very well could.
> > Please do send patches either to Bugzilla or upstream rpmlint Trac, or
> > just file RFE's (these usually preferably in upstream Trac) in case you
> > have good ideas but no code yet.
>
> If I want rpmbuild to run rpmlint automatically on the packages that
> rpmbuild makes, that would be a RFE/patch against rpm, right?

Right.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:49 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org