Re: directory ownership problem

[Sanford Rockowitz]

Jason Tibbits response to my post pointed me in the right direction.  
Here's my reply to him, which I neglected to copy to the list.  The 
problem was not in the coding of spec file but rather in how 
fedora-review determines which spec file to use.

Sanford


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [Fedora-packaging] directory ownership problem
Date: 	Wed, 12 Jul 2017 15:46:39 -0400
From: 	Sanford Rockowitz <rockowitz(a)minsoft.com&gt;
Organization: 	Minaret Software
To: 	Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu&gt;



Jason,

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.

Sanford



On 07/12/2017 01:58 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >>>>> "SR" == Sanford Rockowitz
> <rockowitz(a)minsoft.com&gt; writes:
>  SR> I hope this list is appropriate for asking a question regarding rpm
>  SR> file ownership. As a relative rpm newbie, I suspect I'm missing some
>  SR> piece of "secret sauce" that's just obvious to anyone with rpm
>  SR> experience. If there's a more appropriate place to post the
>  SR> question, I'd appreciate a pointer.  Thanks in advance.
>
>  It's always a good idea to provide a link to your SRPM.  Without it, all
>  I can say is that what you're doing _should_ work but that I'd have to
>  see the whole thing and build it myself to see exactly what's happening.
>
>    - J<
>

directory ownership problem

[Björn Persson]

Sanford Rockowitz <rockowitz(a)minsoft.com&gt; 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.

Björn Persson

directory ownership problem

[Sanford Rockowitz]

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:
>  Sanford Rockowitz <rockowitz(a)minsoft.com&gt; 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.
>
>  Björn Persson
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  packaging mailing list -- packaging(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org