(And yet another resend as it has been send only privately)
On 17 March 2017 at 08:29, Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratoch...@redhat.com> wrote:
> It is really not so simple. :-)
>
> Running GDB testsuite in Koji was crashing the build hosts as they were
> running on older RHEL kernels with ptrace bugs. Hopefully they all run
> recent
> enough RHELs now but I did not check (=read /proc/version from *.spec).
>
Wow!! :)
But besides that the testsuite from Koji was + would be too unrealiable to
> use
> as GDB testsuite is very sensitive to machine load. And you cannot
> guarantee
> no other rpms get built on the same Koji host as your rpm. So I run the
> testsuite only on machines under my control using --with testsuite.
>
So in such gdb special case default it should be in spec "%bcond_with
check" (yes .. "with" is disabling bcond declaration and "without" is
enabling it :) ) to disable %check and force over rpmbuild {--check|--with
check} to force execute %check manually.
Because standard/vanilla rpmbuild has already now --nocheck option already.
Because it is %check section IMO consequently/logically it should be on to
of this --check and "%bcond_with{,out} check" and as well CheckRequires.
Above will be working as well with "--with{,out} check" currently possible
to use command line options.
You may say one may completely drop any testsuite runs from the gdb.spec and
> run it all only externally from some extra scripts. But that is
> inconvenient
> for me (and Red Hat QA) as we deal with so many GDB releases for many
> RH OSes/versions/arches/variants that it is most convenient to keep all the
> testing pre-requisites + rules in one gdb.spec for the GDB variant under
> test.
>
No no .. it is misunderstanding.
Currently in different spec files you may find:
%define <foo> 0
.
%if 0%{<foo>:1}
Buildrequires: <bar>
%endif
.
%if 0%{<foo>:1}
%check
%{__make} check
%endif
or:
%check
%if 0%{<foo>:1}
%check
%{__make} check
%endif
Sometimes instead:
%define <foo> 0
is used:
%bcond_without <foo>
and:
%if %{with <foo>}
%check
%{__make} check
%endif
All above is hard to read to catch by our brains any inconsistencies basing
on humans natural abilities easy recognize patterns or breaking patterns.
All leaving beings on Earth relies on those abilities formed by hundreds
millions of years evolution of life .. so we as humans should be using such
evolution baggage as often as it is only possible :)
In other words .. Fedora current reality is there is no at the moment real
spec files standardisation about how such bits should be implemented in
spec files and depends on people skills some packages are implementing such
bits very strangely.
Again: all %ifings makes really spec files less readable.
My proposition removes completely ALL %ifings because it would be only:
*%bcond_with{,out} check*
*CheckRequires: <foo>*
*CheckRequires: <bar>*
*%check*
*%{__make} check*
Do you see this now that it is much better readable/cleaner/shorter?
This syntax could be easy to plug into our evolutionary patterns abilities
:D
Such warian *does not require any %ifings* making whole spec description
purely declarative.
"rpmbuild -ba <foo>.spec" will cause that during execution of such command
system must have installed all BuildRequires and CheckRequires.
For example "rpmbuild -bc --short-circuit <foo>.spec" may even
automatically disable CheckRequires.
My proposition opens doors as well on possibility execution of "rpmbuild
-bp --nodeps {--with check|--check} --define 'prep %dump' <foo.spec>".
And doesn't matter what is the spec layer setting about use or not use
%check from %dump output *would be possible easy extract only %check stage
additional dependencies*.
Maybe it is not obvious but this trick/technique with "--define 'prep
%dump'" allows process only spec files without any sources, patches or
installed dev tools.
In such scenario nothing from any spec file sections is executed as well.
With any %ifings extraction %check dependencies with or without %dump trick
is/will be way harder.
So my proposal is about architecting proper platform for other use cases
than pure build packages.
IMO spec files should be as much declarative as it is only possible because
such approach makes may things around much easier or even sometimes at
least possible without calling rocket scientists.
> So probably now is clear that with %ifed BuildRequires (like it is now)
> > everything would be way harder.
>
> Just include --with testsuite to Fedora Packaging Guidelines instead of new
> CheckBuild keyword. I have seen also --with check to be used.
>
Correction: s/CheckBuild/CheckRequires/ (sorry I've been writing this reply
at 3am)
It would would be not a keyword but dependency field like existing
Requires, Requires([post|posun|pre|preun) and BuildRequires.
CheckRequires would indicating special dependencies only to have successful
%check section stage execution.
Typical case is that %check has some *additional set of dependencies* which
are longer than BuildRequires list.
kloczek
--
Tomasz Kłoczko | LinkedIn: *http://lnkd.in/FXPWxH <http://lnkd.in/FXPWxH>*
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
