On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 01:26:17PM +0100, Petr Menšík wrote: > What about ability to opt-in into %prep checking on push? > Could we add some new rules to gating.yaml for example, allowing few > checks on push? If it's something that runs locally before accepting the commit, I think that would be fine. Gating/CI is too late, and I don't really want our git server to parse spec files. > Most of package I manage are tiny or small, prep check should not take > longer than 10s on most of them. I made mistake of omitting patch our > source file multiple time. > > Could similar check be enabled either by dist-git file or project > settings on package sources? > > I never did any check, but I think the most of packages are quite small. > How many packages could have significant size of sources? If we have > opt-in first and opt-out for large packages later, would it work? First I think it will need someone to create such a hook, but yeah, for many packages a prep test pre-commit would be good I would think. kevin -- > > On 1/26/21 6:32 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 03:59:18PM +0000, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > >> On 25/01/21 19:58 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > ... > >> > >> 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 > > > > -- > Petr Menšík > Software Engineer > Red Hat, http://www.redhat.com/ > email: pemensik@xxxxxxxxxx > PGP: DFCF908DB7C87E8E529925BC4931CA5B6C9FC5CB > > _______________________________________________ > 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
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 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
