|
Bjorn,
fedora-review did warn that the 2 spec files differed, but more in the form of an observation than waving a big red flag. The old workflow used the "--name <package name>" method of specifying the spec file and SRPM, on the (mis-)understanding that the explicit spec file would override the spec file in the SRPM. Here's how the --name (-n) and related --rpm-spec (-r) options are documented in the man file: $ fedora-review -n <package name> This alternative usage expects <package name>.spec and source rpm in current directory. ... $ fedora-review --rpm-spec -n <srpm path> This form accepts a single path to a source rpm. It uses the specfile bundled in the srpm package. I read this as implying that without the --rpm-spec option, fedora-review uses the explicitly specified specfile. At startup, fedora-review reported: INFO: Processing local files: ddcutil INFO: Getting .spec and .srpm Urls from : Local files in /shared/playproj/i2c/package/fedora/fedrev_temp INFO: --> SRPM url: file:///shared/playproj/i2c/package/fedora/fedrev_temp/ddcutil-0.8.3-1.fc25.src.rpm INFO: --> Spec url: file:///shared/playproj/i2c/package/fedora/fedrev_temp/ddcutil.spec Generated file review.txt contains the following lines: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) Later there's a diff of the 2 files. That's it. No discussion of how it might affect the report. I took it as something to be cleaned up later, and kept trying to figure out what was wrong with the spec file. Sanford On 07/13/2017 05:03 AM, Björn Persson wrote: Sanford Rockowitz <rockowitz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Thanks for the swift reply. Your request for the a link to the SRPM pointed me in the right direction. Even though the -n option to fedora-review specifies the name of the spec file in the current directory, fedora-review was using a slate spec file in the input srpm. So it seems to be a workflow issue, not a spec file syntax issue.Didn't Fedora-review warn you that the spec files differed? It really should wave a big red flag in such cases. Björn Persson |
_______________________________________________ packaging mailing list -- packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
