Just looked at some fedora-review output and noticed the following:
That information is quite outdated; the guidelines have said for some time that you will get only enough of an environment for rpm to run itself and basic shell scripts. You cannot depend on having a C compiler. The link goes to a redirect page and then to an unrelated section about the FHS.
I suppose the solution to some of these issues is for me to actually start doing work on fedora-review and contributing patches or pull requests. I'd happily start doing so if I could get a bit of guidance as to where to start. I haven't really looked at the code yet.
It would be awesome if you could revive fedora-review. Development seems to have stalled. I removed this check with this commit: https://pagure.io/fork/till/FedoraReview/c/253da97ec0dfe3433d0247d70f28b8b9d5b94424
I do not have any deep insights into fedora-review, though.
Hi!
Sorry for late reply. Has been on long, nordic summer holidays.
it would be awesome if you could revive fedora-review.
yes... it's just the generic ENOTIME error. Also, I need to communicate to FPC to track GL changes since f-r was abandoned.
Note that specific tests can be disabled in runtime; see the manpage
There was some info on the code in the wiki, but most of this was lost when moving to pagure from trac. You could start looking into plugins/generic.py. This code should be a reasonable starter - it's basically a method for each test. The other plugins are similar.
I'll try to revive the docs from the trac - they provided some explanations lon the code. Stay tuned, here and also in the #fedora-review IRC channel.
EDIT: In particular, you can find the hardcoded list of packages excluded from BR testing in the CheckBuildRequires class; it should be straight-forward to update that list.
Metadata Update from @leamas: - Issue close_status updated to: None
Login to comment on this ticket.