Re: F38 proposal: Rpmautospec by Default (System-Wide Change proposal)

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

 



On Mon, Jan 02, 2023 at 03:01:16PM -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2023 at 2:44 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <
> zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, Jan 01, 2023 at 03:10:22PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > * Vitaly Zaitsev via devel:
> > >
> > > > On 30/12/2022 20:01, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > > >> This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
> > > >> process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive
> > > >> community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved
> > > >> by the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee.
> > > >
> > > > -1 until these known issues[1] are fixed, especially with changelogs
> > > >  and using rpmautospec in COPR or mock.
> > > >
> > > > [1]:
> > > >
> > https://docs.pagure.org/fedora-infra.rpmautospec/peculiarities.html#known-constraints
> > >
> > > The page doesnt discuss COPR/mock?
> > >
> > > COPR seems to work in some cases, specifically with the dist-git build
> > > (but not just building from dist-git).
> > >
> > > A quick check suggests that rpmautospec does the right thing and
> > > produces a portable source RPM that doesn't depend on rpmautospec
> > > anymore.  As a result, the compatibility impact won't be too severe, I
> > > hope.
> >
> > Also mock builds seem fine. I tested this now on F37 with a few different
> > scenarios:
> > - fedpkg mockbuild
> > - git commit --allow-empty -m Rebuild && fedpkg mockbuild
> > - fedpkg srpm && mock *.src.rpm
> > seem to generate the expected versions numbers and changelogs.
> >
> 
> This is my problem with the proposal. Our tools haven't been fully
> integrated. For a typical update I do not need to run git directly, but for
> this workflow I do.
> 
> For a typical bump all I need is:
> 
> rpmdev-bumpspec -c "Change here"
> fedpkg commit -c -p
> fedpkg build
> 
> Our tools need to handle this automagically. I shouldn't have to know I
> need to add "--allow-empty". It should just work.

Yes, it'd be nice if 'fedpkg' handled this natively more nicely.
There is nothing to do for rpmdev-bumpspec in this case. The first two
steps should/could be replaced by one command:

  fedpkg commit -m 'Change here' -p

I filed https://pagure.io/fedpkg/issue/494 asking for this.
I'll add this to the Scope section of the proposal so we don't lose
track.

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
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue




[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