Dne 07. 04. 21 v 11:05 Panu Matilainen napsal(a):
On 4/7/21 11:45 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote: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__...pycfiles must be present in %{buildroot} to successfully run the tests.3) The files from (2) must be excluded from the package because *pkg_name* ownsthem, 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.
The chances to have this file created are pretty slim end even if it was created, it would not be trustworthy.
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...
Is it correct assumption that any "random" packages can ship BRP? Interesting idea, I have to give it thought. I guess the concern would be that the packages for the most recent Fedora/RPM won't be compatible with older releases without the BRP. But it should be possible to backport it I guess.
Vít
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
