On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 03:59:18PM +0000, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 25/01/21 19:58 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > >On 25. 01. 21 19:32, Robbie Harwood wrote: > >>It seems to me that this problem would be better solved by making > >>rebuilds smarter. Instead of building tip of dist-git (which might > >>never have been build), rebuild the last thing that *was* successfully > >>built. There are a number of ways to potentially track this > >>information[2]. > > > >Koschei already does that (and hence IMHO makes the problem worse, > >becasue it happily reports the package "green" while the git tip > >fails outright in %prep). > > Not for the first time, I wonder why we don't have a git server hook > that rejects a push if it fails %prep. For large packages the %prep is > too slow, but we could at least check for the common mistake of adding > a patch to the .spec and forgetting to git add the actual .patch file. > Why do we allow that, instead of just refusing the push? > > Does anybody have a valid reason to want to be able to push a .spec > that refers to a missing .patch file? Surely it's always an accident > (as happened with libreoffice last week) and we should use tooling to > help us avoid such accidents? I don't think we should do a full %prep (because that sometimes sources can be huge and people do some preprocessing in %prep that might take a few minutes). But we should check that Source* and Patch* is defined and the spec file is syntactically valid. This would go a long way towards avoiding stupid mistakes, without significant cost. Zbyszek _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
