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 10-22-2008, 12:46 PM
Panu Matilainen
 
Default review-o-matic : Fedora package review helper

On Sat, 18 Oct 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?


Yup, there's no place you could hook up a script to check the resulting
packages currently. Seems like a very reasonable RFE to me, feel free to
file in rpm.org Trac.


- Panu -

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-31-2008, 10:11 PM
Orcan Ogetbil
 
Default review-o-matic : Fedora package review helper

What is the status of this project? Did anyone started out writing some code? I want to contribute to this. Is there a webpage?

My opinion on this idea is, we should first write a script that displays 3 different kind of outputs:

1- Pure automatic checks: sha1sums, %files etc. -> Display results
2- Semi-automatic checks: For instance, the script will check for static libraries in the build. -> Display results (If there are static libraries then it will warn the reviewer so he can check for the necessity of them.)
3- Purely manual checks: Not everything in the guidelines is easy to implement. Hence after the script is done, it will tell the reviewer what else needs to be checked manually.

As time goes more features can be implemented and more items from 3 can be shifted into 1 or 2. We will need to build a powerful parser. I think some code can be borrowed from rpmlint.


-oget




--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-31-2008, 10:20 PM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default review-o-matic : Fedora package review helper

Orcan Ogetbil wrote:

What is the status of this project? Did anyone started out writing some code? I want to contribute to this. Is there a webpage?


Refer

https://fedorahosted.org/review-o-matic

Yes, there is some code.

Rahul

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-31-2008, 10:24 PM
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
 
Default review-o-matic : Fedora package review helper

On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 16:11 -0700, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> I think some code can be borrowed from rpmlint.

Borrowing code is a losing proposition. What we need is for the main
rpmlint script to be refactored so that we can call it with a filename.

--
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet@gmail.com>

PLEASE don't CC me; I'm already subscribed
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-01-2008, 02:53 AM
"Rakesh Pandit"
 
Default review-o-matic : Fedora package review helper

2008/11/1 Orcan Ogetbil <orcanbahri@yahoo.com>:
> What is the status of this project? Did anyone started out writing some code? I want to contribute to this. Is there a webpage?
[..]
> As time goes more features can be implemented and more items from 3 can be shifted into 1 or 2. We will need to build a powerful parser. I think some code can be borrowed from rpmlint.
>

You are welcome.

The aim is to get as much as automated checks in rpmlint. If there are
certain things which cannot go in rpmlint because they are fedora
specific should go here (review-o-matic).

We are still to start brainstorming. But hopefully soon we will,
backed up with patches ;-)

--
rakesh
For time being, in case you have queries or want to discuss drop a mail to me.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-01-2008, 05:39 AM
Tim Lauridsen
 
Default review-o-matic : Fedora package review helper

Orcan Ogetbil wrote:

What is the status of this project? Did anyone started out writing some code? I want to contribute to this. Is there a webpage?

My opinion on this idea is, we should first write a script that displays 3 different kind of outputs:

1- Pure automatic checks: sha1sums, %files etc. -> Display results
2- Semi-automatic checks: For instance, the script will check for static libraries in the build. -> Display results (If there are static libraries then it will warn the reviewer so he can check for the necessity of them.)
3- Purely manual checks: Not everything in the guidelines is easy to implement. Hence after the script is done, it will tell the reviewer what else needs to be checked manually.

As time goes more features can be implemented and more items from 3 can be shifted into 1 or 2. We will need to build a powerful parser. I think some code can be borrowed from rpmlint.


-oget





I the ideal tool for this purpose IHO, would be some kind of web
application, to handle all the workflow around getting packages into Fedora.

* uploading specs and srpms
* do automatic tests based on packaging guidelines.
* a reviewer multiple choice popquiz to go through all the checks in
review guidelines. showing the result of the automatic test for the each
rules.


TurboGear would be a good choice for such an application.

A standalone checker would also be a good idea, for the packager to
check that the spec etc, there has been made complies to the guidelines,
before it is uploaded to web application.


It would also be a good idea to design some kind framework to implement
the different rules in a generic way, so it is easier for the
web/standalone application to interface with the tests, and it would
be easier to add new ones and the current one can made better without
breaking the interface with the
generic tools. Each test should be some kind of plugin into the main
application.


Tim



--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-01-2008, 06:27 AM
"Kushal Das"
 
Default review-o-matic : Fedora package review helper

On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 12:09 PM, Tim Lauridsen
<tim.lauridsen@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> I the ideal tool for this purpose IHO, would be some kind of web
> application, to handle all the workflow around getting packages into Fedora.
> * uploading specs and srpms
> * do automatic tests based on packaging guidelines.
> * a reviewer multiple choice popquiz to go through all the checks in review
> guidelines. showing the result of the automatic test for the each rules.
This is going to be a web application only. Current code is for PoC.

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 11-01-2008, 03:10 PM
"Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski"
 
Default review-o-matic : Fedora package review helper

On Saturday, 01 November 2008 at 08:27, Kushal Das wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 12:09 PM, Tim Lauridsen
> <tim.lauridsen@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> > I the ideal tool for this purpose IHO, would be some kind of web
> > application, to handle all the workflow around getting packages into Fedora.
> > * uploading specs and srpms
> > * do automatic tests based on packaging guidelines.
> > * a reviewer multiple choice popquiz to go through all the checks in review
> > guidelines. showing the result of the automatic test for the each rules.
> This is going to be a web application only. Current code is for PoC.

Bleh. What about offline checking? Or at least, will this web application
work with lynx/links?

Regards,
R.

--
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-01-2008, 04:33 PM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default review-o-matic : Fedora package review helper

Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> What is the status of this project? Did anyone started out writing some code? I want to contribute to this. Is there a webpage?
>
> My opinion on this idea is, we should first write a script that displays 3 different kind of outputs:
>
> 1- Pure automatic checks: sha1sums, %files etc. -> Display results

I agree with the three broad categories that you have but please
remember that sha1sums are only a semi-automatic check. sha1sums of the
included tarball can be run against the source URLs listed in the spec
file but those Source URLs must be checked by a human. A computer will
gloss over::
Source0: http://crackz.com/foo.tar.gz

but a human can check via google, mailing lists, and other distros to
see that the Source url is canonical.

> 2- Semi-automatic checks: For instance, the script will check for static libraries in the build. -> Display results (If there are static libraries then it will warn the reviewer so he can check for the necessity of them.)
> 3- Purely manual checks: Not everything in the guidelines is easy to implement. Hence after the script is done, it will tell the reviewer what else needs to be checked manually.
>
> As time goes more features can be implemented and more items from 3 can be shifted into 1 or 2. We will need to build a powerful parser. I think some code can be borrowed from rpmlint.
>

-Toshio

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-01-2008, 04:37 PM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default review-o-matic : Fedora package review helper

Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> On Saturday, 01 November 2008 at 08:27, Kushal Das wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 12:09 PM, Tim Lauridsen
>> <tim.lauridsen@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>>> I the ideal tool for this purpose IHO, would be some kind of web
>>> application, to handle all the workflow around getting packages into Fedora.
>>> * uploading specs and srpms
>>> * do automatic tests based on packaging guidelines.
>>> * a reviewer multiple choice popquiz to go through all the checks in review
>>> guidelines. showing the result of the automatic test for the each rules.
>> This is going to be a web application only. Current code is for PoC.
>
> Bleh. What about offline checking? Or at least, will this web application
> work with lynx/links?
>
Also, do we trust mock with unaudited spec files? I know that we do
trust it with unaudited tarballs but I don't know if this is a reason to
open things up further.

-Toshio

--
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 02:45 AM.

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