On 4/6/21 3:01 PM, Tim Landscheidt wrote:
Miro Hrončok <mhron...@redhat.com> wrote:
[…]
2. change %check not to rely on unpackaged files in buildroot
That one is non-trivial and depends on the reason it is needed.
For example, what is common for Python "namepsace" packages, e.g. pkg_name.foo.
1) We want to test installed files, not what is in $PWD, so we set PYTHONPATH to
%{buildroot}%{python3_sitearch}:%{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib} and we
(try hard to) exclude $PWD from it. This is crucial to ensure the files
we actually ship are working and the installed file set is complete.
Our macros do this for the packagers.
2) The %{python3_site...}/pkg_name/ directory and
%{python3_site...}/pkg_name/__init__.py and
%{python3_site...}/pkg_name/__pycache__/ and
%{python3_site...}/pkg_name/__pycache__/__init__...pyc
files must be present in %{buildroot} to successfully run the tests.
3) The files from (2) must be excluded from the package because *pkg_name* owns
them, not *pkg_name.foo*.
We Require the "toplevel" *pkg_name* package from *pkg_name.foo*.
The files are not bit-by-bit+metadata identical,
so both packages cannot ship them.
[…]
My understanding of the RPM spec sections was always that:
- "%prep" is for "./configure",
- "%build" is for "make",
- "%install" is for "make install", and
- "%check" is for "make check".
"make check" (usually executed /before/ "make install")
works in and on the working directory
(https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Standard-Targets.html#Standard-Targets).
Exactly. Only rpm got this sequence wrong, because %check is executed
after %install. If it wasn't for that, we wouldn't be having this
conversation at all because then %check would be clearly defined.
For the curious, this is how %check came to existence:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=64137
I'm kinda wondering here if there wouldn't be any solutions to in this
direction - the existing %check is being (ab)used for things its not
well suited to because it's positioned in the way it is, and people be
better off with something different entirely.
To test that the resulting binary package is functional, an-
other venue is needed, and in the case of Fedora, for that
purpose Fedora CI was created
(https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/ci/tests/).
That feels like a much cleaner solution than installing some
files, testing and then not shipping them because the test
environment will be the same as a user's who just installed
the package instead of being in the process of building the
package.
Indeed.
- Panu -
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
