Re: rpmlint improvements

[Kamil Paral]

----- "seth vidal" <skvidal(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:

>  On Mon, 2010-10-11 at 04:09 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote:
>  
>  > Oh, this starts to be really complicated :) My idea was one config 
>  > file per binary package.
>  
>  per binary pkg? Why per binary pkg? 
I got my inspiration from
http://lintian.debian.org/manual/ch2.html#s2.4

Rpmlint allows us to check individual binary packages. It would be nice
to have the whitelist config file placed right inside that particular
package, wouldn't it?

If it is included in a source package, then it won't be applied when I
run rpmlint on just a binary package.

If the config file should be located somewhere on the Internet, it won't
be applied when I just run rpmlint locally.

But I might just get something wrong. This is certainly something 
I'm new into.

>  
>  
>  
>  > I have no experience with package maintenance, but different Fedora
>  > releases of the same package are represented just by different git 
>  > branches, right? So if that need occurs, there should be no problem
>  > in keeping different config file versions for f13 and el5 branch,
>  > am I right?
>  
>  that's correct - hence my suggestion. 
Great, that means that "quibble" over rules shouldn't occur, everyone has
its own playground.

>  
>  
>  
>  > The main difference is just that I propose to include that file
>  directly
>  > in that binary package. That means AutoQA doesn't have to download
>  > it from anywhere, and (more importantly) arbitrary rpmlint run 
>  > produces the same result as our AutoQA run -- of course just if this
>  
>  > feature is supported in upstream rpmlint.
>  
>  That would mean every pkg gets an addition of the rpmlint config
>  file?
>  EVERY pkg?
>  
>  Why? 
Not every package, just those packages that want to have some lines
whitelisted from rpmlint output.

We can also create some Fedora-wide config file (according to our 
packaging guidelines) that would be applied to all our packages 
globally (and could be inside our rpmlint package and stored in 
/etc/rpmlint/fedora.conf), so that would further decrease the number 
of packages that would need to contain such a config file. Similarly 
to what Mandriva does:
http://svn.mandriva.com/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/packages/cooker/rpmlint-mandri...

What do you think?

rpmlint improvements

[Alexander Todorov]

Kamil Paral wrote:
>  ----- "seth vidal" <skvidal(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
> wrote:
>  
> > On Mon, 2010-10-11 at 04:09 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote:
> >
> >> Oh, this starts to be really complicated :) My idea was one config 
> >> file per binary package.
> > per binary pkg? Why per binary pkg?
>  
>  I got my inspiration from
>  http://lintian.debian.org/manual/ch2.html#s2.4
>  
>  Rpmlint allows us to check individual binary packages. It would be nice
>  to have the whitelist config file placed right inside that particular
>  package, wouldn't it?
>   
Without changing the existing rpmlint code base this can be done with 2 simple 
rules:
1) Package "foo" installs /etc/rpmlint/foo.config if it wants to whitelist some

output. You need to do that anyway.

2) All addFilter (regular expression) lines in foo.config start with the package 
name to avoid affecting other packages.

Are you OK with that or you explicitly want rpmlint to read the following conf 
files:
  - /usr/share/rpmlint/config (upstream config)
  - /etc/rpmlint/config (distro provided config - currently empty)
  - /etc/rpmlint/foo.config (package provided white list config)
  - No other config files are read.

--
Alexander.

rpmlint improvements

[Seth Vidal]

On Mon, 2010-10-11 at 09:39 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote:
>  I got my inspiration from
>  http://lintian.debian.org/manual/ch2.html#s2.4
>  
>  Rpmlint allows us to check individual binary packages. It would be nice
>  to have the whitelist config file placed right inside that particular
>  package, wouldn't it? 
you want to add a new file to EVERY SINGLE pkg?

A new file which is not, at all, useful on the users system?

And in terms of fedora you want to ad 17000 new files? (1 for each pkg)

That doesn't seem like a good use of our mirror or our users' bandwidth,
to me.

>  If it is included in a source package, then it won't be applied
> when I
>  run rpmlint on just a binary package. 
And the only thing running rpmlint on the binary pkg is autoqa, right?

If so then autoqa would:
1. get the name of the basepkg/sourcerpm from the binary pkg
2. get the branch name from where the pkg is stored
3. grab the rpmlint config from git of the basepkg + branch
4. profit!


>  If the config file should be located somewhere on the Internet, it
> won't
>  be applied when I just run rpmlint locally. 
which is no problem, imo - b/c this isn't a solution for someone
randomly running rpmlint - nor is a goal of this to be a solution for
random executions of rpmlint.


>  But I might just get something wrong. This is certainly something 
>  I'm new into. 
I'm thinking we are not communicating well at all or there is something
i'm misunderstanding here.


>  Not every package, just those packages that want to have some lines
>  whitelisted from rpmlint output. 
Which, ultimately, means every pkg.

>  We can also create some Fedora-wide config file (according to our 
>  packaging guidelines) that would be applied to all our packages 
>  globally (and could be inside our rpmlint package and stored in 
>  /etc/rpmlint/fedora.conf), so that would further decrease the number 
>  of packages that would need to contain such a config file. Similarly 
>  to what Mandriva does:
>
> http://svn.mandriva.com/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/packages/cooker/rpmlint-mandri...
>  
>  What do you think? 
why would we do that instead of just having the solution  work for
autoqa?

why does this need to be a global solution for anyone in fedora who
happens to run rpmlint?

-sv

rpmlint improvements

[James Laska]

On Mon, 2010-10-11 at 11:36 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
>  On Mon, 2010-10-11 at 09:39 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote:
>  > I got my inspiration from
>  > http://lintian.debian.org/manual/ch2.html#s2.4
>  > 
>  > Rpmlint allows us to check individual binary packages. It would be nice
>  > to have the whitelist config file placed right inside that particular
>  > package, wouldn't it?
>  
>  you want to add a new file to EVERY SINGLE pkg?
>  
>  A new file which is not, at all, useful on the users system?
>  
>  And in terms of fedora you want to ad 17000 new files? (1 for each pkg)
>  
>  That doesn't seem like a good use of our mirror or our users' bandwidth,
>  to me.
>  
>  > If it is included in a source package, then it won't be applied when I
>  > run rpmlint on just a binary package.
>  
>  And the only thing running rpmlint on the binary pkg is autoqa, right?
>  
>  If so then autoqa would:
>  1. get the name of the basepkg/sourcerpm from the binary pkg
>  2. get the branch name from where the pkg is stored
>  3. grab the rpmlint config from git of the basepkg + branch
>  4. profit!
>  
>  
>  > If the config file should be located somewhere on the Internet, it won't
>  > be applied when I just run rpmlint locally.
>  
>  which is no problem, imo - b/c this isn't a solution for someone
>  randomly running rpmlint - nor is a goal of this to be a solution for
>  random executions of rpmlint. 
I agree, for now it might be overkill to have the rpmlint file included
in the package.  It doesn't seem like too much trouble for the AutoQA
test wrapper to be responsible for downloading the appropriate config
from git.  We do something similar for rats_sanity where it grabs the
latest comps.rng out of git when validating comps.

>  > But I might just get something wrong. This is certainly
> something 
>  > I'm new into.
>  
>  I'm thinking we are not communicating well at all or there is something
>  i'm misunderstanding here.
>  
>  
>  > Not every package, just those packages that want to have some lines
>  > whitelisted from rpmlint output.
>  
>  Which, ultimately, means every pkg.
>  
>  > We can also create some Fedora-wide config file (according to our 
>  > packaging guidelines) that would be applied to all our packages 
>  > globally (and could be inside our rpmlint package and stored in 
>  > /etc/rpmlint/fedora.conf), so that would further decrease the number 
>  > of packages that would need to contain such a config file. Similarly 
>  > to what Mandriva does:
>  >
> http://svn.mandriva.com/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/packages/cooker/rpmlint-mandri...
>  > 
>  > What do you think?
>  
>  why would we do that instead of just having the solution  work for
>  autoqa?
>  
>  why does this need to be a global solution for anyone in fedora who
>  happens to run rpmlint? 
Perhaps just thinking of ways to kill a few birds with one stone?  

I love the idea of having a distribution-wide rpmlint policy config, but
perhaps that's biting off more than we can chew at present.  Starting
with a mechanism that will allow maintainers to instrument rpmlint
overrides, and AutoQA will honor their overrides during rpmlint
execution seems like a good first start.

Thanks,
James