On talk about AI by Tomáš Tomeček I have realized rpm building process it quite
terrible at providing machine processable results for failed builds. I think it
should be reported in machine parseable format, JSON for example.
When the build has failed on BuildRequires: installation, it should even know
exact list of packages missing to be working. But the list is just written into
the output in unstructured way. I think optional status file should be
provided, with mentioning in which section the failure happened and optional
parameters, if it cat gather them.
I think those section failures should be reported separately:
- BuildRequires: missing (with list of packages)
- source files missing (with list of files)
- patch files missing (with list of files)
- patch apply failed (with list of patches)
- ``%prep`` fail in general
- ``%build`` fail
- ``%check`` fail
- ``%install`` fail
- unpackaged files found (with list of files)
Those information could be the presented by build service to the user, ideally
with possibility to read only failing section output if I wish. If the tool has
structured information, it should export it in structured way for machine
processing. Such structured information could be used for statistics or faster
fixing. In some cases it would allow even *automated* fixes of failing spec
file.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2769
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: <rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2...@github.com>
_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
