[Fwd: [Fedora-packaging] time for a review-oh-matic?]

[sankarshan]

Forwarding from the packaging list because a prototype could perhaps be
easy to cook up :)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Fedora-packaging] time for a review-oh-matic?
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 12:21:04 -0700
From: Chris Weyl <cweyl(a)alumni.drew.edu&gt;
Reply-To: Discussion of RPM packaging standards and practices for
Fedora	<fedora-packaging(a)redhat.com&gt;
To: fedora-packaging(a)redhat.com

So, building on the spirited debate going on with respect to a
suggested review template, is it time for a review-oh-matic type
service?

Many of the things we do for reviews are the same.  Check it builds in
mock (koji scratch), check the srpm sources against upstream, look @
rpmlint, look at the file lists, etc, etc...  Wouldn't it make all our
lives to have a simple little tool that a packager could submit a srpm
for review to.  It could then, say (and off the top of my head):

1) extract the spec, and push it + the srpm somewhere
2) file a review bug
2) kick off a koji scratch build
3) post a link to the build, success/failure, build logs (a la the
FTBFS overlord)
==> success, pull the built rpms, and post to the review bug:
* rpmlint, requires/provides
* md5/sha1 of srpm provided source against upstream
* a partial template, good bad, etc.

Provisions could be made for dependencies -- e.g. pass blocking review
bug; won't try to do any of the koji bits until the blocking bug(s) is
closed.  As the review process goes on, new srpms could be submitted
against the same review and have the same automatic bits run.

This certainly isn't intended to automatically review and approve
packages, and wouldn't be an excuse for reviewers to just rubber
stamp.  But it certainly could make the process a little less painful
and more reliable by consistently automating those bits that it's
feasible to.

                                            -Chris

-- 
Chris Weyl
Ex astris, scientia



-- 

http://www.gutenberg.net - Fine literature digitally re-published
http://www.plos.org - Public Library of Science
http://www.creativecommons.org - Flexible copyright for creative work