RFC: BugURL in packages

[Igor Gnatenko]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Hello,

it's been just 9 years since BugURL has been added to RPM, but it has not been
used.

I think it would be helpful for users to have it defined in RPMs, so when they
do `dnf info`, `rpm -qi` they would just click on it and it would select right
component, right version and such for it.

Do you think same way? If so, which URL should we put there?
- -- 
- -Igor Gnatenko
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEhLFO09aHZVqO+CM6aVcUvRu8X0wFAlqFX2MACgkQaVcUvRu8
> X0wB7g//TKeZAueQA8wuY8obJG3puVYQA0DUQxAY0/TUyGGlwxVyhLukHndxVE05
> hNV+f7PGxdgyFne8V04K1b/akoNNxezL7jLgSlDk88brG8TG/ihok6y8ynIFKV5r
> 8lIMpaJ1Yg4PXBvteSMVRD+zX3maOYA0LwmZFsKgrq7FVYE9LeMtZ5hhwyOsw/fU
> dKjbvtLZ5OCtsutF8j6NOpAGEaOPa/LKf8ZQZjKC1Q2idurBE13JmY9udc95x+Zp
> Z4MX3weBipggBoZBVJc9c8C4ltzj9lqY6SFDYLPuzqGkso91jgfrqCZogPBzD0uI
> MPKwUo5J+NAGbHKJ3UA3NsYjlFHKDZpwPNjPjJW1G9dylS4MQYf+7/Ci+vVYdFxW
> YZ+kleLpS0p8BI14L64B1yMx4BDzJTkIo7GqRRYQTJr22aW3oEUnM3ZFYmpxnNuP
> OPah+lXbaqN1E8xzoIyd62qacQn/WczETyBFzVPvX42nwa/QgECkVCLk/sL/NQvA
> fd04q218Cq55tYM2y8OXXzAKHhyVBqTcVdAgKAnPUbXk2N2nwdm9oyBwF+zRAiG1
> Y0+idZR/8+jK3IfBZ+Q9DJKOhVZfJntxp99sBXAuSK5pPbOWho2BbbFNK/QVgRpG
> tKdgJESO0xXGj9Eg9+FMWUyvx7BQEnTNej5nyhwDULzlEGLvTss=
> =A43B
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski]

On Thursday, 15 February 2018 at 11:22, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
>  Hello,
>  
>  it's been just 9 years since BugURL has been added to RPM, but it has not been
>  used. 
Wow! You're right:
$ rpm -q --querytags|grep -i bug
BUGURL

>  I think it would be helpful for users to have it defined in RPMs, so
> when they
>  do `dnf info`, `rpm -qi` they would just click on it and it would select right
>  component, right version and such for it.
>  
>  Do you think same way? If so, which URL should we put there? 
Sure. Obviously:

BugURL: https://bugz.fedoraproject.org/%{name}

And this should be added by our rpm config, much like BuildRoot:,
not put in every spec file.

Regards,
-- 
Fedora   https://getfedora.org  |  RPMFusion   http://rpmfusion.org
There should be a science of discontent. People need hard times and
oppression to develop psychic muscles.
        -- from "Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan

[Pierre-Yves Chibon]

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 11:22:27AM +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
>  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>  Hash: SHA256
>  
>  Hello,
>  
>  it's been just 9 years since BugURL has been added to RPM, but it has not been
>  used.
>  
>  I think it would be helpful for users to have it defined in RPMs, so when they
>  do `dnf info`, `rpm -qi` they would just click on it and it would select right
>  component, right version and such for it.
>  
>  Do you think same way? If so, which URL should we put there? 
I think bugz.fedoraproject.org/<package name> is potentially a good url to use
for this.

Pierre

[Fabio Valentini]

On Feb 15, 2018 11:52, "Pierre-Yves Chibon" <pingou(a)pingoured.fr&gt; wrote:

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 11:22:27AM +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
>  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>  Hash: SHA256
>
>  Hello,
>
>  it's been just 9 years since BugURL has been added to RPM, but it has not 
been
>  used.
>
>  I think it would be helpful for users to have it defined in RPMs, so when 
they
>  do `dnf info`, `rpm -qi` they would just click on it and it would
> select 
right
>  component, right version and such for it.
>
>  Do you think same way? If so, which URL should we put there? 
I think bugz.fedoraproject.org/<package name> is potentially a good url to
use
for this.


Linking to fedora bugzilla was my first "instinct". However, it is
completely redundant and doesn't add any new information to the package,
since it's the same URL for every package in fedora. Additionally, such
URLs don't even work right now (certificate errors and 404s, at least for
me).

In contrast, adding a link to upstream bug tracking (which is actually
different
everywhere) would provide useful additional  information.

Fabio


Pierre
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org

[Neal Gompa]

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 6:03 AM, Fabio Valentini <decathorpe(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  On Feb 15, 2018 11:52, "Pierre-Yves Chibon"
> <pingou(a)pingoured.fr&gt; wrote:
>
>  On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 11:22:27AM +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA256
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > it's been just 9 years since BugURL has been added to RPM, but it has not
> > been
> > used.
> >
> > I think it would be helpful for users to have it defined in RPMs, so when
> > they
> > do `dnf info`, `rpm -qi` they would just click on it and it would select
> > right
> > component, right version and such for it.
> >
> > Do you think same way? If so, which URL should we put there?
>
>  I think bugz.fedoraproject.org/<package name> is potentially a good url to
>  use
>  for this.
>
>
>  Linking to fedora bugzilla was my first "instinct". However, it is
>  completely redundant and doesn't add any new information to the package,
>  since it's the same URL for every package in fedora. Additionally, such URLs
>  don't even work right now (certificate errors and 404s, at least for me).
>
>  In contrast, adding a link to upstream bug tracking (which is actually
>  different everywhere) would provide useful additional  information.
>  
I'd argue otherwise. Generally speaking, bugs related to packages
should absolutely be filed with Fedora. It is the maintainer who must
judge whether it's something Fedora caused or upstream caused, and
file the appropriate bug there. We are the stewards of the experience
in Fedora, so we get first dibs on bug reports, too. ;)



-- 
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!

[Fabio Valentini]

On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 2:43 PM, Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 6:03 AM, Fabio Valentini
> <decathorpe(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
> > On Feb 15, 2018 11:52, "Pierre-Yves Chibon" <pingou(a)pingoured.fr&gt;
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 11:22:27AM +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> Hash: SHA256
> >>
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> it's been just 9 years since BugURL has been added to RPM, but it has not
> >> been
> >> used.
> >>
> >> I think it would be helpful for users to have it defined in RPMs, so when
> >> they
> >> do `dnf info`, `rpm -qi` they would just click on it and it would select
> >> right
> >> component, right version and such for it.
> >>
> >> Do you think same way? If so, which URL should we put there?
> >
> > I think bugz.fedoraproject.org/<package name> is potentially a good url to
> > use
> > for this.
> >
> >
> > Linking to fedora bugzilla was my first "instinct". However, it is
> > completely redundant and doesn't add any new information to the package,
> > since it's the same URL for every package in fedora. Additionally, such URLs
> > don't even work right now (certificate errors and 404s, at least for me).
> >
> > In contrast, adding a link to upstream bug tracking (which is actually
> > different everywhere) would provide useful additional  information.
> >
>
>  I'd argue otherwise. Generally speaking, bugs related to packages
>  should absolutely be filed with Fedora. It is the maintainer who must
>  judge whether it's something Fedora caused or upstream caused, and
>  file the appropriate bug there. We are the stewards of the experience
>  in Fedora, so we get first dibs on bug reports, too. ;) 
I didn't argue that bugs should be reported upstream, I just wanted to
express that including redundant information isn't useful IMO.

Reporting bugs for fedora packages is the same process for every
fedora package, so that doesn't have to be documented seperately.
Upstream bug trackers aren't tracked/documented in fedora (.specs)
yet, however. That's the reason why I think providing links to
upstream trackers adds value, whereas linking to a fedora component in
rhbz / fedora bug list for a package doesn't.

Fabio

> --
> 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org

[Vít Ondruch]

Good you mention it. But probably adding RH bugzilla there does not make
sense, because hopefully everybody knows and it should be the default.
But it could be utilized by packages, whose maintainers notoriously
ignore RH bugzilla (Gnome components comes to my mind).

Vít


Dne 15.2.2018 v 11:22 Igor Gnatenko napsal(a):
>  Hello,
>
>  it's been just 9 years since BugURL has been added to RPM, but it has
>  not been
>  used.
>
>  I think it would be helpful for users to have it defined in RPMs, so
>  when they
>  do `dnf info`, `rpm -qi` they would just click on it and it would
>  select right
>  component, right version and such for it.
>
>  Do you think same way? If so, which URL should we put there?
>  _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list --
> devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe 
send an email to
devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org

[Miroslav Suchý]

Dne 15.2.2018 v 12:09 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
>  Good you mention it. But probably adding RH bugzilla there does not
> make sense, because hopefully everybody knows and it
>  should be the default. 
Nope. I think even some power users will have to look hard for the right URL.

>  But it could be utilized by packages, whose maintainers notoriously
> ignore RH bugzilla (Gnome
>  components comes to my mind). 
Can we have this defined by Mock/Koji/Copr and let package maintainers override it (e.g.,
to point to upstream, the
Gnome is good example)?

Miroslav

[Kevin Fenzi]

On 02/15/2018 03:29 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:

>  Can we have this defined by Mock/Koji/Copr and let package
> maintainers override it (e.g., to point to upstream, the
>  Gnome is good example)? 
I think thats a pretty good compromise.

Does anyone have cycles to look into the best place to make this change
and how to get the override working on a per package basis?

kevin

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

> >>>> "KF" == Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)scrye.com&gt;
> writes: 
KF> Does anyone have cycles to look into the best place to make this
KF> change and how to get the override working on a per package basis?

It appears that koji already forces several RPM tags:

; The vendor to use in rpm headers
vendor=Fedora Project

; The packager to use in rpm headers
packager=Fedora Project

; the distribution to use in rpm headers
distribution=Fedora Project

So it seems most logical that it would set BugURL: in the same manner.
But that does mean that it would have to grow that support.  Let's see
how difficult it would be....

 - J<

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

So basically, koji has a list of macros (hardcoded in koji/__init__.py)
which unfortunately carries the comment:

    #XXX - this needs to be configurable

Those get turned into config_opts['macros']['%_foo']['whatever']
directives in the generated mock config.

Some of those macros (%vendor, %packager, %distribution) are pulled from
the koji configuration file.  There is also some other specialized code for these
three.  Koji will search the specfile for any definitions of them and
fail to start the build if they're found, and there's other code which
will bomb out if the buildsystem somehow didn't set the proper values in
the generated packages.

What behavior would we want here?  Is it appropriate to allow packagers
to override BugURL:?  If so then it should be OK to just add the bit of
code to grab it from the config options and to add one macro to the
definition in koji/__init__.py.  I have verified that passing the bugurl
on the rpm command line works as expected, with the specfile overriding
if the tag is present.  I've also verified that passing it through mock
via config_opts works as expected.  Of course I don't have my own koji
setup to actually use to test things that way.

Anyway, it's not much work for someone who knows what they're doing;
more work for me (because I never know what I'm doing) but I can still
whip something up.  I can't think of any reasonable reason that upstream
would reject this as long as it comes with test code, but there are 56
open pull requests so....

 - J<

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

Or you can just add this:

config_opts['macros']['%bugurl'] =
'http://bugz.fedoraproject.org/%name'

to the mock site-defaults.cfg on the builders.  For some reason I
thought that we couldn't depend on %name to be stable in the case of
subpackages but it appears to not matter.

 - J<

[Kevin Fenzi]

On 02/16/2018 02:48 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>  Or you can just add this:
>  
>  config_opts['macros']['%bugurl'] =
> 'http://bugz.fedoraproject.org/%name'
>  
>  to the mock site-defaults.cfg on the builders.  For some reason I
>  thought that we couldn't depend on %name to be stable in the case of
>  subpackages but it appears to not matter. 
And it should be live. :)

kevin