Bug 2385991

Can the spec file be modified to conditionally run the slow tests?

See https://rpm-software-management.github.io/rpm/manual/conditionalbuilds.html

Can the spec file be modified to produce a macro package first, thereby allowing for a two stage bootstrap?

It is helpful to be able to run the review tool when updating, not just on initial import.

Apologies for coming back later than I'd hoped, my spare time was scarcer than anticipated.

> Can the spec file be modified to conditionally run the slow tests?

I let the XXX comment and eventually forgot about it, but that was my intention.

> Can the spec file be modified to produce a macro package first, thereby allowing for a two stage bootstrap?
>
> It is helpful to be able to run the review tool when updating, not just on initial import.

I don't dispute the value of recurring reviews of a package, since packaging guidelines are a moving target. I'm reluctant to the idea of introducing a bootstrap step in the process. I made some effort to enable automatic dependency management and managed to upstream all the changes needed to support that. I added a hare-filesystem sub-package for a SHOULD NOT entry in the guidelines, at the expense of potentially running dependency generator more than once (not changing the final results).

If I'm spending time on this fedora-review problem, I'd rather take it the other way around and teach it to parse the spec with sources. For example with the -r option since the spec is extracted alongside other sources in an srpm-unpacked directory.

It is unfortunate that fedora-review fails in the presence of a %load macro, but I'd rather keep it and optimize for maintenance rather than review (or fix fedora-review). If the ruby package was submitted today, it would run into the same problem. It's probably possible to kick-start an automated review by manually expanding the %load macro in a copy of the spec, to get the initial template and supported checks. It's just not a seamless 'fedora-review -b 2385991` invocation.

*** Bug 2262452 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Ok, updating fedora-review tool would be good.

You can check out my branch: https://pagure.io/FedoraReview/pull-request/533

Then this should be enough to kick-start a review:

    python3 try-fedora-review -b 2385991

At least it WorksOnMyMachine™.

I had a quick look and there is a lot of rpmlint noise that I addressed with this:

    $ cat hare.rpmlintrc
    # Empty READMEs allow empty modules to have submodules
    addFilter("zero-length /usr/src/hare/stdlib/.*/README")

    # Empty "tagged" source files can override "default" files
    addFilter("zero-length /usr/src/hare/stdlib/.*[.].*")

    # Multiple tags may need the same sources
    addFilter("files-duplicate /usr/src/hare/stdlib/.*")

    # False positive for hare-rpm-macros
    addFilter("only-non-binary-in-usr-lib")

    # This warning should be case-sensitive
    addFilter("name-repeated-in-summary Hare")

There is also one failing check out of the box:

    [!]: 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).

But again, it looks like a false positive that could be automated away:

    --- /home/dridi/fedora/FedoraReview/2385991-hare/srpm/hare.spec 2025-09-20 00:05:47.623689505 +0200
    +++ /home/dridi/fedora/FedoraReview/2385991-hare/srpm-unpacked/hare.spec        2025-07-28 02:00:00.000000000 +0200
    @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@
    +## START: Set by rpmautospec
    +## (rpmautospec version 0.8.1)
    +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog
    +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
    +    release_number = 7;
    +    base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}"));
    +    print(release_number + base_release_number - 1);
    +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}}
    +## END: Set by rpmautospec
    +
     %undefine _auto_set_build_flags

And another diff for %autochangelog.

I have not looked at the remaining criteria myself.

Hello,
I do realize that this is possibly an old ticket. I am sorry that it hasn't been
reviewed yet. Let me trigger the Fedora Review Service to see if the package
builds successfully. Hopefully, a green check mark will attract some reviewer.

If I am resurrecting an old ticket that you are not interested in anymore, my
apologies, feel free to close it.

[fedora-review-service-build]

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9820242
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2385991-hare/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09820242-hare/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.