Re: F35 Change proposal: RPM 4.17 (System-Wide Change proposal)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 4/6/21 7:40 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:

Dne 06. 04. 21 v 16:02 Panu Matilainen napsal(a):
On 4/6/21 1:36 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
For example, what is common for Python "namepsace" packages, e.g. pkg_name.foo.

1) We want to test installed files, not what is in $PWD, so we set PYTHONPATH to
%{buildroot}%{python3_sitearch}:%{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib} and we
    (try hard to) exclude $PWD from it. This is crucial to ensure the files
    we actually ship are working and the installed file set is complete.
    Our macros do this for the packagers.

2) The %{python3_site...}/pkg_name/ directory and
    %{python3_site...}/pkg_name/__init__.py and
    %{python3_site...}/pkg_name/__pycache__/ and
    %{python3_site...}/pkg_name/__pycache__/__init__...pyc
    files must be present in %{buildroot} to successfully run the tests.

3) The files from (2) must be excluded from the package because *pkg_name* owns
    them, not *pkg_name.foo*.
    We Require the "toplevel" *pkg_name* package from *pkg_name.foo*.
    The files are not bit-by-bit+metadata identical,
    so both packages cannot ship them.

This seems like a fairly exotic case to me - okay, a Python-peculiar problem. And a problem of stepping (not saying crossing, because I'm not sure it is) on the boundaries of the %check use-case I suppose.

%ghost'ing the files might be one option - I don't know about the Ruby cache case beyond that there is one.


There is only `%{gem_cache}` (I assume it was mentioned in the context of `%exclude`, because that has nothing to do with testing). Not shipping this file is enough and we don't ship it just because we don't want to ship file which looks like upstream file but it is not the original upstream file. Moreover we don't really need it for the purposes it is used by upstream, which is restoring the original state of the library.

Ah, okay, it's an entirely different case then. Does this file ever get created when running the installed software (by root)? If so, then %ghost'ing it would seem to be the right thing.

If it's just something that needs to be scrubbed on each and every ruby package ever built, we could always add a buildroot policy for it. Just like we could automatically clean .la files rather than manually clean them in thousands of packages...
But since Ruby was mentioned there, we generally run test suite in `%{_builddir}` (and there are (unfortunately) two possible location, while only one is preferred). Generally, it could be run in `%{buildroot}` with similar results, but it should be discouraged due to possible `%{buildroot}` pollution.

Ok, good. Indeed, buildroot should not be used by %check because it can and often does have side-effects.

I'm starting to think the right thing to do is to move %check to run after %build rather than %install. That would completely eliminate arguments over what is proper use and should this or that be done etc.

	- Panu -
_______________________________________________
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux