AutoQA test for missed BR's

>  Correct me if I am wrong, but shouldn't such build fail due to
> unsatisfied dependencies? 
>  And if the build fails, the package maintainer will probably notice that. Is the purpose
> of 
>  this proposed test to detect such builds that failed and its maintainer didn't notice
> it, or is there another purpose?
>  I'm not a package maintainer and I don't have much experience building packages
> and using Koji, so further explanation is helpful. Thanks. 
There are two type of dependencies mandatory and optional.
If mandatory dependence missing then build will failed.
But if optional dependence missing build will be complete
but some of functionality will be missing.

For example see this okular build log, where BuildRequires
qca2-devel was unintentionally missed:
http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/packages/okular/4.6.95/2.fc16/data/logs...

There is cmake output:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- The following OPTIONAL packages could NOT be located on your system.
-- Consider installing them to enable more features from this software.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   * QCA (2.0.0 or higher)  <http://delta.affinix.com/qca/>
     Qt Cryptographic Architecture (QCA)
     Support for encrypted OpenDocument Text documents in Okular.

But this build was complete.

This was wixed in next build by adding needed BuildRequires
http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/packages/okular/4.6.95/3.fc16/data/logs...

So such missing optional dependencies needs attention.

[Kamil Paral]

>  So such missing optional dependencies needs attention. 
I have created a ticket:
https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/367

I have to say we currently work on infrastructure and some important tests regarding Bodhi
updates. Until we have proper architecture in place to provide results to package
maintainers easily (e.g. inside Koji) for such tests, we won't probably work on them.
But if somebody wants to write it and maintain it in the meantime, we will gladly accept
it into our test suite.

Kamil

[Chris Tyler]

On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 13:37 +0300, alekcejk(a)googlemail.com wrote:
>  There are two type of dependencies mandatory and optional.
>  If mandatory dependence missing then build will failed.
>  But if optional dependence missing build will be complete
>  but some of functionality will be missing.
>  
>  For example see this okular build log, where BuildRequires
>  qca2-devel was unintentionally missed:
>  http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/packages/okular/4.6.95/2.fc16/data/logs...
...
>  So such missing optional dependencies needs attention. 
I really want to stress that it *may need* attention. During the armv7hl
bring-up, we've realized that there are some *ridiculous* dep chains in
our package collection. Adding in optional build dependencies will cause
the corresponding runtime dependencies (libraries, utilies, etc) to get
pulled in, and there will be many cases where a package maintainer will
legitimately decide not to add an optional BR in order to keep the dep
chains sane. I'd hate for automated test results to convince (especially
new) packagers that they should add in optional BRs without carefully
working through the consequences... the wording of the warning message
will be important here.

-Chris