#238 fedora-review should understand rpmautospec
Opened 2 years ago by nphilipp. Modified 2 years ago

This is so it doesn't flag a couple of things it shouldn't, e.g. "missing dist tag". Yeah, this is not very well fleshed out.


See FedoraReview#417 about fixing the complaint about missing disttag.
Is there something else that does not work in fedora-review?

Using https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2103475 as an example, with fedora-review-0.8.0-1.fc35.noarch:

Generic:
[!]: 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)
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /var/tmp/2103477-rust-normpath/srpm/rust-normpath.spec      2022-08-07 10:19:58.561126206
 +0000
+++ /var/tmp/2103477-rust-normpath/srpm-unpacked/rust-normpath.spec     2022-07-04 07:58:47.0
00000000 +0000
@@ -1,2 +1,11 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.2.6)
+%define autorelease(e:s:pb:) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
+    release_number = 2;
+    base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}"));
+    print(release_number + base_release_number - 1);
+}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{?dist}
+## END: Set by rpmautospec
+
 # Generated by rust2rpm 21
 %bcond_without check
@@ -100,3 +109,7 @@

 %changelog
-%autochangelog
+* Mon Jul 04 2022 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@in.waw.pl> 0.3.2-2
+- Add Provides:bundled() for the bundled code
+
+* Sun Jul 03 2022 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@in.waw.pl> 0.3.2-1
+- First version

Essentially it warns about the processing that rpmautospec does.

https://pagure.io/FedoraReview/issue/451 is a better place to discuss this.
Please close this ticket.

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata