question about rpmlint E: non-executable-script
by chedi toueiti
Hi,
I'm reviewing a new package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1810902
this package have bash scripts that are under /usr/lib and starting with a
shebang, rpmlint is detecting the error
E: non-executable-script
rpkg-macros.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/rpkg.macros.d/all.bash 644 /bin/bash
rpkg-macros.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/rpkg.macros.d/git.bash 644 /bin/bash
rpkg-macros.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/rpkg.macros.d/library/log.bash 644 /bin/bash
rpkg-macros.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/rpkg.macros.d/library/output.bash 644 /bin/bash
rpkg-macros.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/rpkg.macros.d/library/query.bash 644 /bin/bash
rpkg-macros.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/rpkg.macros.d/library/utils.bash 644 /bin/bash
The author desire to keep the shebang and not set the execution bit as the
files are not meant to be executable.
Should I consider the package valid or not in this case.
--
*Chedi Toueiti*
* Due to the constant fluctuation in customer personalities, we cannot be
responsible for the mental stability of any one member of our staff.
** My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
*** I always try to go the extra mile at work, but my boss always finds me
and brings me back.
3 years, 9 months
Re: Ideas and proposal for removing changelog and release fields from spec file
by Nicolas Mailhot
Le 2020-03-02 14:45, clime a écrit :
> On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 at 12:05, Nicolas Mailhot via devel
> <devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>>
>> Le 2020-03-01 02:31, clime a écrit :
>> > On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 at 21:50, Nicolas Mailhot via devel
>> > <devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Le samedi 29 février 2020 à 20:30 +0100, clime a écrit :
>>
>> >> Putting %{dynrel} reconciliation in the rpmbuild -bs stage using
>> >> detached file state means that fedpkg local (or checking out git state
>> >> and building in mock or copr or OBS or via plain rpmbuild -bs) will
>> >> give you the same result as launching fedpkg build.
>> >
>> > Well, I believe it doesn't. You run:
>> >
>> > 1) fedpkg local -> produces <somepkg>-1.0-1.fc32 (1 in release because
>> > you haven't built that package before)
>> > 2) fedpkg build
>>
>> At that point state is undefined till the build succeeds or not. If
>> the
>> build succeeds, the buildsystem will write back a new state. Let’s
>> assume it succeeds.
>
> It's undefined if you add more elements to the equation than necessary
> (i.e. build system), otherwise it would be well-defined in this case.
>
>>
>> > 3) vim <somepkg>.spec and do some change in %description
>> > 4) fedpkg commit -m "description improvement"
>> > 5) fedpkg local -> produces <somepkg>-1.0-1.fc32
>> > 6) fedpkg push -> error because build system pushed meanwhile
>>
>> Yes, here the packager notices something else has been going on, and
>> he
>> needs to merge or rebase. He’d have the same effect if another
>> packager
>> had been doing stuff on the package, or a mass rebuild had been going
>> on. That’s the distributed decentralized aspect of git, except here
>> the
>> packager collided with himself by starting two work threads in
>> parallel
>> (one buildsys-side, one local).
>
> The problem is that you launched some process and you need to wait
> until it finishes, normally you don't need to anything like that when
> working with git.
But fedpkg build is a release to production process. It’s not a dev
staging process. In release processes, actually doing the release is not
an inconvenient optional check.
You're asked to autobump a “Release” field. You’re asked to automate a
changelog which is effectively a release changelog, not dev changelog
(the dev changelog lives in git, people want a good changelog in rpm
proper to track release not git history).
The *single* *only* reason good release numbers and good changelog
matter is because the result will be released to third parties. koshei,
or scratch builds, or whatever, do not care about those.
A normal git flow would lock the branch at release time to let the
release manager do his releasing (merge window closed in Linus’s terms).
That’s option 1 I gave you.
Alternatively, you can use option 2, the “I feel lucky” approach, let
everything open, and abort the release if merge-back failed. A packager
that changes his package before the production build is finished will
probably want it canceled anyway (what is the point of risking breaking
builds of other packages by pushing an unfinished package to the shared
koji buildroot)?
Either option does not stop the packager to do anything he wants in his
local branches. They just require him to merge/rebase when syncing with
the centralized master Fedora state. That’s a core element of git
architecture, be it in Fedora or elsewhere.
You can not avoid a buildsys merge-back when doing production builds.
The merge-back can be explicit and automatic (as I proposed), or you can
rely on informal meatware for it, but it will exist. Since the whole
point of the request is to lower dependence on meatware, why on hell
would you want to keep meatware as part of the whole process?
The only “cost” for the packager is to wait for his build to finish
before continuing to change the package (or merge/rebase). That’s not an
horrific cost. No one forced the packager to start a build before he was
ready. No one forced the packager to perform a production build instead
of a scratch build if he just wanted to check partial changes. If shit
happens, and he realizes before the build end something is not ok,
aborting the build on failed merge back is helping the packager.
Or am I missing something? “normally you don't need to anything like
that when working with git” is not a clear technical point.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Mailhot
3 years, 9 months
Re: Ideas and proposal for removing changelog and release fields from spec file
by Neal Gompa
On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 8:46 AM clime <clime(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 at 12:05, Nicolas Mailhot via devel
> <devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> >
> > If you don’t keep things decentralized you’ll be in a word of pain when
> > the scm or buildsys needs to be changed for another implementation (not
> > to mention, that’s not a good way to collaborate with other distros).
> > That will happen eventually. Web apps are not eternal.
>
> Full decentralization likely means that everyone has its own git repo
> and we can only sync by mailing list. I think src.fp.o is a good point
> where things can be done and where we can agree on what the packages
> that Fedora produce are (meaning we need a canonical source of package
> sources, otherwise it would be more complex to put a distribution
> together).
>
This is not true. Pagure accepts PRs from arbitrary Git servers just
fine via the remote PR feature, so we do support decentralized
workflows without resorting to sending patches via email or Bugzilla.
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
3 years, 9 months
Ilegal char when computing python dependencies
by Sergio Pascual
Hi, I have a python package that has most of its information in setup.cfg.
I'm updating to python-photutils 0.7.2 and when mock is computing the
Requires it shows:
Requires: libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) python(abi) = 3.8 python3.8dist(numpy) >= 1.13
rtld(GNU_HASH)
Obsoletes: python-photutils < 0.7.2-1.fc33
Recommends: python3-matplotlib python3-scikit-image python3-scipy
RPM build errors:
Illegal char '*' (0x2a) in: 3.0.*
Child return code was: 1
This is caused by the following line in setup.cfg
[options]
...
install_requires =
astropy>=2.0.12,!=3.0.*,!=3.1,!=3.1.1
I don't know if the * character is allowed here and the error is a
limitation in the management of RPM dependencies or if this is not valid
python.
Best. Sergio
3 years, 9 months
Re: Ideas and proposal for removing changelog and release fields from spec file
by Nicolas Mailhot
Le 2020-03-01 02:31, clime a écrit :
> On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 at 21:50, Nicolas Mailhot via devel
> <devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>>
>> Le samedi 29 février 2020 à 20:30 +0100, clime a écrit :
>> Putting %{dynrel} reconciliation in the rpmbuild -bs stage using
>> detached file state means that fedpkg local (or checking out git state
>> and building in mock or copr or OBS or via plain rpmbuild -bs) will
>> give you the same result as launching fedpkg build.
>
> Well, I believe it doesn't. You run:
>
> 1) fedpkg local -> produces <somepkg>-1.0-1.fc32 (1 in release because
> you haven't built that package before)
> 2) fedpkg build
At that point state is undefined till the build succeeds or not. If the
build succeeds, the buildsystem will write back a new state. Let’s
assume it succeeds.
> 3) vim <somepkg>.spec and do some change in %description
> 4) fedpkg commit -m "description improvement"
> 5) fedpkg local -> produces <somepkg>-1.0-1.fc32
> 6) fedpkg push -> error because build system pushed meanwhile
Yes, here the packager notices something else has been going on, and he
needs to merge or rebase. He’d have the same effect if another packager
had been doing stuff on the package, or a mass rebuild had been going
on. That’s the distributed decentralized aspect of git, except here the
packager collided with himself by starting two work threads in parallel
(one buildsys-side, one local).
> 7) fedpkg pull --rebase (to quickly fix the error)
> 8) fedpkg build -> builds <somepkg>-1.0-2.fc32
>
> To get the correct NVR for the package being built by `fedpkg local`
> you need to wait for some external process to finish first so that you
> can pull the new state. Only then you get correct value again.
Sure, that‘s the inconvenient of state: it needs syncing. And the whole
auto-bump thing intrinsically depends on state not provided manually by
human beings.
However putting state in git would be no better, because you’d end up
assuming a build exists before it does, in fact, build (and builds do
fail because packagers are imperfect humans).
And putting state in buildsys would also not be any better because
successful production builds end up in changelogs and you want
changelogs to be tracked.
So, no matter how you re-arange things, you’ll always have a buildsys
sync-back somewhere (you have it today when humans change their
changelogs after a failed build; automating that makes the sync-back
explicit).
>> For fedpkg verrel you'll probably want to output a last (saved in
>> detached file) and next line (probably factorizable by externalizing
>> the dynrel bump logic in a separate command). That’s more honest
>> anyway, next may happen or not, when you launch fedpkg verrel, it’s
>> mere potential (the next commit may bump version and invalidate your
>> future build).
>
> There is the same problem as above with `fedpkg local`, the command
> won't be giving you correct values at all times.
There is no correct value to give before production build succeeded or
not. When fedpkg local gives you something today it is lying (just try
it just before someone mass rebuilds, and then try to commit after this
mass rebuild: that will fail and you’ll have to merge/rebase).
You’re assuming a simple universe where you’re the only one doing things
with a package. That’s not a true assumption, many packages have shared
ownership and maintenance (to say nothing of proven-packagers and releng
doing things on top of them).
> It doesn't need to be the consequence of "automating changelog". It's
> only a consequence in certain implementations. If the changelog is
> derived purely from the git state, there aren't these problems
> anymore.
Sure there are. You're assuming anything committed to git builds before
actually trying to build it. And expecting manual packager git fixup
when that’s not the case. Just like in the sync-back state except with
no tooling enforcement and help.
>> Putting state in detached srpm source files has the following super-
>> duper property. You can import the srpm or scm checkout between
>> systems, and they’ll just pick up from the point the previous system
>> left things, without needing a full scm import.
>
> That's nice if there is always just a single provider of the given
> package in our ecosystem. In case of copr, you can fork a certain repo
> and continue building there so you will be getting bumped numbers on
> top of the work done in the original repo. But once the original repo
> starts producing some builds as well you will be getting that package
> in two versions in two different coprs and while the original repo
> might have done less builds than the forked one since the fork
> happened, it can contain the package with more features because the
> forked repo was simply playing around.
You will never get official Fedora git releases changed based on the
status of some copr builds. That takes a deliberate package admin action
(and that works in the proposal, just fedpkg import the last srpm built
in copr, that syncs repos).
If you want things to work on the other direction, copr will need to
read state from Fedora infra one way or another, and it can perfectly
read state from detached files committed back to Fedora git by koji. And
then you need a second-level counter for copr, and configure copr for
using the the second-level counter only. And then if you want OBS to
build from copr that builds from koji…
I’m not sure multi-level bumping is in scope for the proposal. If it’s
in scope that makes things more complex (but not a lot more complex).
Multi-level definitely means the n-th level builder must be able to
redefine Release structure, and will want the (n-1)th Release exposed as
variable.
> I can see the advantage of your proposal that the auto-bumping
> theoretically doesn't need git to work. But it still needs git because
> you need push the updated %{dynstate} files somewhere. The only way to
> avoid it would be to build a new srpm together with the rpm where the
> srpm would be the same as the input srpm except for the updated
> %{dynstate} files.
That’s why I wrote that the last-step of release bumping belongs in rpm
proper, at srpm creation stage. Only way I see to get in independent
from a specific project scm setup. The last build state must be provided
in srpm data as detached file, and the bumping logic make decisions
based on this data (we already put state in srpm for reproducible
builds, IIRC).
> So in case we wouldn't have src.fp.o and the
> development would be fully decentralized, I could see your proposal to
> be actually the only way to implement auto-bumping and it would be a
> nice way. The thing is, the way we are developing today is different
> from that
If you don’t keep things decentralized you’ll be in a word of pain when
the scm or buildsys needs to be changed for another implementation (not
to mention, that’s not a good way to collaborate with other distros).
That will happen eventually. Web apps are not eternal.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Mailhot
3 years, 9 months
