Not that I'd know anything about packaging, but would not be something
like (pseudocode):
dirty_user = False
if not exists_user(autotest):
create_user(autotest)
dirty_user = True
# do magical build stuff
if dirty_user:
remove_user(autotest)
So you have 'the thing' in makefile, and you don't need to add
additional build dep?
joza
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Laska" <jlaska(a)redhat.com>
To: "AutoQA development" <autoqa-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 6, 2011 2:31:32 PM
Subject: Re: 'rpm' make target failing
On Thu, 2011-01-06 at 02:59 -0500, Kamil Paral wrote:
----- Original Message -----
> Greetings,
>
> I was just testing the latest 'master' branch, and it seems that the
> 'rpms' Makefile target is broken. Along with the change to support
> posting bodhi comments (5d37e59128c1913946c02e6a1d899a5576f37801), we
> set the group of fas.conf to the user 'autotest'. On my primary
> system,
> I don't have autotest installed, so the 'make rpms' target fails as
> follows:
>
> make[1]: Leaving directory `/tmp/jlaska-rpm/BUILD/autoqa-0.4.3'
> + install -m 644 autoqa.conf repoinfo.conf
> /tmp/jlaska-rpm/BUILDROOT/autoqa-0.4.3-1.fc14.x86_64/etc/autoqa/
> + install -m 640 -g autotest fas.conf
> /tmp/jlaska-rpm/BUILDROOT/autoqa-0.4.3-1.fc14.x86_64/etc/autoqa/
> install: invalid group `autotest'
> error: Bad exit status from /tmp/jlaska-rpm/TMP/rpm-tmp.Hj4RAu
> (%install)
>
> An easy fix would be to add "BuildRequires: autotest" to the spec
> file,
> but for some reason that doesn't seem right. I can't think of any, but
> should we consider alternatives to adding a BuildRequires for
> autotest?
>
> Thanks,
> James
I don't have experience with building RPMs, maybe we can ask on #devel
what the correct approach is? From my laic point of view we require
autotest group to be present when building package and therefore autotest
is our build requirement (is there any harm in that?).
Until now it wasn't a build requirement, but with the fas.conf addition,
you are right, this might be the most sensible approach. Not sure why
I'm hesitant to do it though. Unless something better comes along,
we'll go with that for the next release.
We could also probably change the fas.conf's group in postinstall
script,
but that would break the 'make clean install' functionality.
I don't think that would cut the package review mustard.
Thanks for the input!
James
_______________________________________________
autoqa-devel mailing list
autoqa-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/autoqa-devel