On Mon, Jan 2, 2023 at 2:44 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <
zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl> wrote:
On Sun, Jan 01, 2023 at 03:10:22PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Vitaly Zaitsev via devel:
>
> > On 30/12/2022 20:01, Ben Cotton wrote:
> >> This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
> >> process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive
> >> community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved
> >> by the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee.
> >
> > -1 until these known issues[1] are fixed, especially with changelogs
> > and using rpmautospec in COPR or mock.
> >
> > [1]:
> >
https://docs.pagure.org/fedora-infra.rpmautospec/peculiarities.html#known...
>
> The page doesnt discuss COPR/mock?
>
> COPR seems to work in some cases, specifically with the dist-git build
> (but not just building from dist-git).
>
> A quick check suggests that rpmautospec does the right thing and
> produces a portable source RPM that doesn't depend on rpmautospec
> anymore. As a result, the compatibility impact won't be too severe, I
> hope.
Also mock builds seem fine. I tested this now on F37 with a few different
scenarios:
- fedpkg mockbuild
- git commit --allow-empty -m Rebuild && fedpkg mockbuild
- fedpkg srpm && mock *.src.rpm
seem to generate the expected versions numbers and changelogs.
This is my problem with the proposal. Our tools haven't been fully
integrated. For a typical update I do not need to run git directly, but for
this workflow I do.
For a typical bump all I need is:
rpmdev-bumpspec -c "Change here"
fedpkg commit -c -p
fedpkg build
Our tools need to handle this automagically. I shouldn't have to know I
need to add "--allow-empty". It should just work.
Thanks,
Richard