Re: rpmautospec by default
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek kirjoitti 6.8.2022 klo 20.19:
On Sat, Aug 06, 2022 at 06:29:25PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 06. 08. 22 16:10, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>> Let's make %autorelease + %autochangelog the default approach in Fedora
packaging
>
> I still haven't got around to start using it, because I recall that
> initially there were problems I've reported or followed and nobody was
> looking into them. This got a bit better, but is still quite bad :(
My experience was similar. Initially, I was excited about not having to
tinker with the specfile changelog any more, so converted some packages
to rpmautospec. Then I ran into issues, so I converted everything back
to manual changelog. Also I got the feeling that issues were fixed
slowly. The two issue ssI was tracking at the time [1,2] have since been
marked fixed, though.
[1]: https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/rpmautospec/issue/104
[2]: https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/rpmautospec/issue/189
I believe removing menial work from packaging workflow is really
valuable, probably even necessary to keep things running in the future.
But if some automation is recommended for all packagers, please make
sure that people who follow that recommendation do have to regret.
> The following issues all bother me and nobody seem to have the
resources to
> fix them or even look at them:
>
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/rpmautospec/issue/238 -- 9 months ago
I mention this one in my wall'o'text above. It's something for
fedora-review to fix. I don't think it's a blocking issue though:
fedora-review is always slow with following new things and reviewers
must always be prepared to ignore most of its output.
The complaint about missing dist tag has been already fixed [1]. Is
there something else that does not work in fedora-review yet?
[1]: https://pagure.io/FedoraReview/pull-request/417#