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
INFO: --> SRPM url:
INFO: --> Spec url:
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: (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.
On 07/13/2017 05:03 AM, Björn Persson wrote:
Sanford Rockowitz <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Thanks for the swift reply. Your request for the a link to the SRPM
pointed me in the right direction. Even though the -n option to
fedora-review specifies the name of the spec file in the current
directory, fedora-review was using a slate spec file in the input
srpm. So it seems to be a workflow issue, not a spec file syntax issue.
Didn't Fedora-review warn you that the spec files differed? It really
should wave a big red flag in such cases.
packaging mailing list -- email@example.com
To unsubscribe send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org