Description of problem: Review a package which have files .7z in SOURCES finish with : + 7za x /builddir/build/SOURCES/mamehistory147.7z /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.YgM54Y: line 35: 7za: command not found error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.YgM54Y (%prep) RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.YgM54Y (%prep) Finish: shell Finish: lock buildroot ^CException down the road. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): fedora-review-0.3.0-1.fc17.noarch How reproducible: Review a package which have files .7z in SOURCES when tries mock --no-cleanup-after --no-clean --shell "rpmbuild --nodeps -bp /builddir/build/SPECS/*spec" fails with 7za: command not found 11-04 02:15 root DEBUG Mock command: mock, -r, fedora-rawhide-x86_64-rpmfusion_nonfree, --no-cleanup-after, --no-clean, --resultdir=/home/sergio/rpmfusion/mame-data-extras/review-mame-data-extras/results, --shell, rpmbuild --nodeps -bp /builddir/build/SPECS/*spec 11-04 02:15 root DEBUG Mock output: INFO: mock.py version 1.1.26 starting... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux disabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Start: lock buildroot Start: device setup Finish: device setup Start: shell Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.YgM54Y + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + rm -rf mame-data-extras-0.147 + /usr/bin/mkdir -p mame-data-extras-0.147 + cd mame-data-extras-0.147 + /usr/bin/chmod -Rf a+rX,u+w,g-w,o-w . + 7za x /builddir/build/SOURCES/mamehistory147.7z /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.YgM54Y: line 35: 7za: command not found error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.YgM54Y (%prep) Expected results: not fail
To me, this feels more like a bug in the spec file (missing BR) than a bug in fedora-review
(In reply to comment #1) > To me, this feels more like a bug in the spec file (missing BR) than a bug > in fedora-review The error is not in build time , here is the example, you may test it : https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2492#c11
If your mock configuration adjusted to include the RPMFusion repositories? Can you build this package without problem in mock?
(In reply to comment #3) > If your mock configuration adjusted to include the RPMFusion repositories? > > Can you build this package without problem in mock? yes. Sorry , you will need add --mock-config fedora-rawhide-x86_64-rpmfusion_nonfree package from rpmfusion is mock-rpmfusion-nonfree-18.0-1.fc17.noarch
Fedora-review can not depend on package from RPMFusion. However, you can specify to fedora-review which mock configuration to use (see --help)
I did: $ yum install mock-rpmfusion-nonfree-18.0-1.fc17.noarch $ wget http://lesloueizeh.com/belegdol/mame-data-extras.spec $ wget http://lesloueizeh.com/belegdol/mame-data-extras-0.147-2.fc19.src.rpm $ fedora-review -n mame-data-extras --mock-config fedora-rawhide-x86_64rpmfusion_nonfree and hit this bug ...
fedora-review -n mame-data-extras -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --no-build -o offline Processing local files: mame-data-extras whats means : Packages required by --no-build are not installed: mame-data-extras-robby, mame-data-extras This fedora-review doesn't obey to --no-build ? and think that is a package ?
The no-build option is badly documented. It can be used if (and only if) fedora-review has built the package in a previous run. The message above means that f-r detects that the package from previous run is not installed in mock. This should not be fatal, but generate some errors for not installed packages. Using --no-build only makes sense when one wants to re-run f-r with e. g., other options or plugins. I'll try to reproduce your error. Meanwhile, could you describe your usecase a little, so we can figure out how to handle it? (I'm on IRC #fedora-review as well)
Using the command in comment #6 fails for me, the configuration looks wrong. Using -m fedora-18-i386-rpmfusion_free instead the build seems to work a little longer, but fails after a while anyway. Looking into the logfile ~/.cache/fedora-review.log I find the mock command which f-r runs: mock -r fedora-18-i386-rpmfusion_free --no-cleanup-after --no-clean --resultdir=/home/leamas/tmp/FedoraReview/mame-data-extras/results --rebuild /home/leamas/tmp/FedoraReview/mame-data-extras-0.147-2.fc19.src.rpm Running this "by hand" the build fails, final message: Getting requirements for mame-data-extras-0.147-2.fc18.src --> p7zip-9.20.1-4.fc18.i686 Error: No Package found for unrar Here's something I don't understand...
Ok this is weird, I could replicate the problem this week-end but I cannot anymore (with the same spec/srpm). Can you still?
(In reply to comment #10) > Ok this is weird, I could replicate the problem this week-end but I cannot > anymore (with the same spec/srpm). > > Can you still? No , not the same today . I got + 7za x /builddir/build/SOURCES/mamehistory147.7z /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.1EhdKb: line 35: 7za: command not found error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.1EhdKb (%prep) but review finish with: Review template in: /home/sergio/rpmfusion/mame-data-extras/review-mame-data-extras/mame-data-extras-review.txt
Could you please attach the log file ~/.cache/fedora-review.log?
OK, found it. This happens while installing the sources: 11-09 05:23 root DEBUG Mock command: mock, -r, fedora-18-i386-rpmfusion_nonfree, --no-cleanup-after, --no-clean, --resultdir=/home/mk/FedoraReview/review-mame-data-extras/results, --shell, rpmbuild --nodeps -bp /builddir/build/SPECS/*spec [cut] Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.Z86yxb + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + LANG=C + export LANG + unset DISPLAY + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + rm -rf mame-data-extras-0.147 + /usr/bin/mkdir -p mame-data-extras-0.147 + cd mame-data-extras-0.147 + /usr/bin/chmod -Rf a+rX,u+w,g-w,o-w . + 7za x /builddir/build/SOURCES/mamehistory147.7z /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.Z86yxb: line 39: 7za: command not found error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.Z86yxb (%prep) Although I havn't digged into why, this does not happen on devel. On 3.1.1 the reason seems to be that the build requirements are not installed in mock when unpacking the sources. This is most often not an issue, but this particular spec uses specific tools (7za) to unpack the sources. Will investigate why devel works later, possibly filing a trac bug. Sergio: The unpacked sources is probably not a big issue. However, you might be interested in walking around this by using the devel branch as described in https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/UseDevelopmentVersion.
Trac ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/ticket/173
fedora-review-0.4.0-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fedora-review-0.4.0-1.fc17
fedora-review-0.4.0-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fedora-review-0.4.0-1.fc18
fedora-review-0.4.0-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fedora-review-0.4.0-1.el6
Package fedora-review-0.4.0-1.el6: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=epel-testing fedora-review-0.4.0-1.el6' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2013-0216/fedora-review-0.4.0-1.el6 then log in and leave karma (feedback).
fedora-review-0.4.0-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fedora-review-0.4.0-2.el6
fedora-review-0.4.0-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fedora-review-0.4.0-2.fc17
fedora-review-0.4.0-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fedora-review-0.4.0-2.fc18
fedora-review-0.4.0-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fedora-review-0.4.0-3.fc18
fedora-review-0.4.0-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fedora-review-0.4.0-3.fc17
fedora-review-0.4.0-4.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fedora-review-0.4.0-4.fc18
fedora-review-0.4.0-4.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fedora-review-0.4.0-4.fc17
fedora-review-0.4.0-4.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fedora-review-0.4.0-4.el6
fedora-review-0.4.0-4.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
fedora-review-0.4.0-4.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
fedora-review-0.4.0-4.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.