Bjorn,

fedora-review did warn that the 2 spec files differed, but more in the form of an observation than waving a big red flag.

The old workflow used the "--name <package name>" method of specifying the spec file and SRPM, on the (mis-)understanding that the explicit spec file would override the spec file in the SRPM. 

Here's how the --name (-n) and related --rpm-spec (-r) options are documented in the man file:

  $ fedora-review -n <package name>

       This  alternative  usage expects <package name>.spec and source rpm in current directory.  ...

   $ fedora-review --rpm-spec -n <srpm path>

       This form accepts a single path to a source rpm. It uses the specfile bundled in the srpm package.

I read this as implying that without the --rpm-spec option, fedora-review uses the explicitly specified specfile.

At startup, fedora-review reported:

  INFO: Processing local files: ddcutil
  INFO: Getting .spec and .srpm Urls from : Local files in /shared/playproj/i2c/package/fedora/fedrev_temp
  INFO:   --> SRPM url: file:///shared/playproj/i2c/package/fedora/fedrev_temp/ddcutil-0.8.3-1.fc25.src.rpm
  INFO:   --> Spec url: file:///shared/playproj/i2c/package/fedora/fedrev_temp/ddcutil.spec

Generated file review.txt contains the following lines:

  [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
        Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
        attached diff).
        See: (this test has no URL)

Later there's a diff of the 2 files.   That's it.  No discussion of how it might affect the report.  I took it as something to be cleaned up later, and kept trying to figure out what was wrong with the spec file.

Sanford

On 07/13/2017 05:03 AM, Björn Persson wrote: