Bug 2233878 - rpm python interface fails to expand fontpkgname1 macro
Summary: rpm python interface fails to expand fontpkgname1 macro
Keywords:
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: rpm
Version: 39
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Linux
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Panu Matilainen
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2023-08-23 15:56 UTC by Jerry James
Modified: 2024-02-04 20:28 UTC (History)
12 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jerry James 2023-08-23 15:56:56 UTC
When attempting to push to a font package repository with multiple fonts, I invariably get a rejection from the pre-push hook, like this:

Source file '65-%{fontpkgname1}.conf' was neither listed in the 'sources' file nor tracked in git. Push operation was cancelled
Hint: this check (.git/hooks/pre-push script) can be bypassed by adding the argument '--no-verify' argument to the push command.

The %{fontpkgname1} macro was not expanded, and so the filenames don't match.

As noted in this thread [1], others have encountered this problem as well, and there is some suspicion that this bug may have contributed to many font packages not being rebuilt during the mass rebuild.

[1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/7IIZPEC6B4BEOOOV5YFEUGOONNOH5LZO/

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Pick a font package such as fontawesome-fonts or makemusic-finale-fonts
2. Make some trivial change
3. Try to do a git push
Actual Results:  
The git push is prevented by the pre-push hook, due to an unexpanded RPM macro.

Expected Results:  
The macro should be expanded, and the pre-push hook should permit the push.

Comment 1 Jerry James 2023-08-31 19:05:20 UTC
This isn't a fedpkg problem.  It simply invokes "spectool -l":

$ spectool -l musescore.spec
Source0: https://github.com/musescore/MuseScore/archive/v4.1.1/MuseScore-4.1.1.tar.gz
Source1: 65-%{fontpkgname1}.conf
Source2: 65-%{fontpkgname2}.conf
Source3: 65-%{fontpkgname3}.conf
Source4: 65-%{fontpkgname4}.conf
Source5: 65-%{fontpkgname5}.conf
Source6: 65-%{fontpkgname6}.conf
Source7: 65-%{fontpkgname7}.conf
Source8: 65-%{fontpkgname8}.conf
Source9: 65-%{fontpkgname9}.conf
Patch0: musescore-fix-qmake-path.patch
Patch1: musescore-unbundle-libs.patch
Patch2: musescore-unbundle-fonts.patch
Patch3: musescore-splashscreen.patch
Patch4: musescore-ffmpeg.patch
Patch5: musescore-appdata.patch
Patch6: musescore-neon.patch

And spectool invokes the rpm python interface:

$ python3
Python 3.11.4 (main, Jun  7 2023, 00:00:00) [GCC 13.1.1 20230511 (Red Hat 13.1.1-2)] on linux
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> import rpm
>>> spec = rpm.spec('musescore.spec')
>>> spec.sources
[('musescore-neon.patch', 6, 2), ('musescore-appdata.patch', 5, 2), ('musescore-ffmpeg.patch', 4, 2), ('musescore-splashscreen.patch', 3, 2), ('musescore-unbundle-fonts.patch', 2, 2), ('musescore-unbundle-libs.patch', 1, 2), ('musescore-fix-qmake-path.patch', 0, 2), ('65-%{fontpkgname9}.conf', 9, 1), ('65-%{fontpkgname8}.conf', 8, 1), ('65-%{fontpkgname7}.conf', 7, 1), ('65-%{fontpkgname6}.conf', 6, 1), ('65-%{fontpkgname5}.conf', 5, 1), ('65-%{fontpkgname4}.conf', 4, 1), ('65-%{fontpkgname3}.conf', 3, 1), ('65-%{fontpkgname2}.conf', 2, 1), ('65-%{fontpkgname1}.conf', 1, 1), ('https://github.com/musescore/MuseScore/archive/v4.1.1/MuseScore-4.1.1.tar.gz', 0, 1)]
>>> hdr = spec.sourceHeader
>>> hdr[rpm.RPMTAG_SOURCE]
['65-%{fontpkgname9}.conf', '65-%{fontpkgname8}.conf', '65-%{fontpkgname7}.conf', '65-%{fontpkgname6}.conf', '65-%{fontpkgname5}.conf', '65-%{fontpkgname4}.conf', '65-%{fontpkgname3}.conf', '65-%{fontpkgname2}.conf', '65-%{fontpkgname1}.conf', 'MuseScore-4.1.1.tar.gz']

I notice that the fontpkgnameX macros are Lua macros.  Would the rpm maintainers chime in on whether this is expected behavior of the rpm python interface?  If it is, what should spectool do to get fully macro-expanded source file names?

Comment 2 Panu Matilainen 2023-09-01 06:53:43 UTC
Oh my. Frankly, I don't know how these packages manage to build *at all* (at least with rpm >= 4.15), yet somehow they apparently do. The issue is these source lines refer to macros that ARE undefined at the point they come up in the spec, and only become defined after the call to '%fontpkg -a'. Which happens much later in the spec. Moving the %fontpkg call before the Source lines makes them defined at that point, but *then* the spec fails to build. (I'm looking at makemusic-finale-fonts it's a more lightweight to work with than musescore, but the issue is the same)

Comment 3 Jerry James 2023-09-01 22:14:35 UTC
Thanks for looking at this Panu.  Yes, moving %fontpkg before the SourceX lines leads to %{SOURCE0} and %{SOURCE1} somehow being undefined.  I admit that I don't understand the %fontpkg macro.  Do you have any suggestions on how we can move forward?

Comment 4 Michael J Gruber 2024-01-17 10:49:07 UTC
Note that this is not necessarily an issue in the spec of multi font packages. `spectool -l` works for

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/sil-gentium-basic-fonts

and the adf fonts, for example.

I couldn't spot any relevant differences (and checked that many are irrelevant ...). [Maybe lack of a main package/package0, or the numbering).]

I also added `-v` to `%fontpkg -a` which gives debug output from the font macros. In all cases ("working" and "non-working"), macros use forward references. Also, if I edit the spec file to say

```
%global fontconfs1      %{SOURCE2}
%global fontpkgname1    finale-ash-fonts
```
then `spectool -l` will happily resolve the forward reference! So it's not about `SOURCE` being forward referenced at all.

Also, apparantly, the macros work fine with rpm, just not with spectool/bindings.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.