verify RPMs using rpminspect by lbarcziova · Pull Request #786 · packit/ogr

lbarcziova · 2023-05-22T08:50:31Z

softwarefactory-project-zuul · 2023-05-22T09:11:08Z

Build succeeded.
https://softwarefactory-project.io/zuul/t/packit-service/buildset/f3aeb8af7f7249be9a7a2b86314df7bb

✔️ pre-commit SUCCESS in 2m 04s
✔️ ogr-tests-rpm SUCCESS in 11m 42s
✔️ ogr-tests-pip-deps SUCCESS in 11m 49s
✔️ ogr-reverse-dep-packit-tests SUCCESS in 19m 12s

softwarefactory-project-zuul · 2023-05-22T10:54:07Z

Build succeeded.
https://softwarefactory-project.io/zuul/t/packit-service/buildset/02f5e1fc141744edb9ce0da63e35e5a9

✔️ pre-commit SUCCESS in 2m 10s
✔️ ogr-tests-rpm SUCCESS in 12m 00s
✔️ ogr-tests-pip-deps SUCCESS in 11m 58s
✔️ ogr-reverse-dep-packit-tests SUCCESS in 20m 41s

mfocko · 2023-05-29T14:09:49Z

�[33m[10:42:14] [W] [worker_1] [Fedora-38:x86_64:/plans/rpminspect.fedora] Could not find results file 'work-rpminspect.fedorapxjxl6_l/plans/rpminspect.fedora/execute/results.yaml' containing tmt results�[0m

What?

lbarcziova · 2023-06-01T10:05:50Z

/packit-stg test

LecrisUT · 2023-06-06T11:19:46Z

Btw, for rpmlint of both spec and rpm files (rpmlint -r *.rpmlintrc ./*.spec /tmp/*.rpm as it is done downstream) you might need to add a configure file, e.g.:

$ cat packit.toml
Filters = [
    "unknown-key",
]
$ rpmlint -c packit.toml -r *.rpmlintrc ./*.spec /tmp/*.rpm

softwarefactory-project-zuul · 2023-06-13T14:46:33Z

Build succeeded.
https://softwarefactory-project.io/zuul/t/packit-service/buildset/5f18be82226b46b081c2d93b8021e1f3

✔️ pre-commit SUCCESS in 2m 06s
✔️ ogr-tests-rpm SUCCESS in 11m 48s
✔️ ogr-tests-pip-deps SUCCESS in 11m 55s
✔️ ogr-reverse-dep-packit-tests SUCCESS in 19m 05s

mfocko · 2023-06-23T08:45:28Z

/packit test

LecrisUT · 2023-06-23T08:59:29Z

plans/rpminspect-centos.fmf

+    - rpminspect
+    - rpminspect-data-centos
+  - how: shell
+    script: cd /tmp && curl -O ${PACKIT_SRPM_URL}


Suggested change

script: cd /tmp && curl -O ${PACKIT_SRPM_URL}

script: dnf download ${PACKIT_COPR_RPMS} --destdir=$TMT_PLAN_DATA

A simpler one-liner, and then in tests, change the path accordingly. Should be more robust against future environment changes.

actually, I think we wanted to avoid downloading the RPMs ourselves and leave this to TF itself, as looking into packit/packit.dev#607

I am not sure I understand this. You mean to not use ${PACKIT_COPR_RPMS} or to have them available on TF by default? Would this still be reproducable locally via the testing farm link?

This is just an alternative way how to download RPMs without changing anything else. So we should be fine with this approach.

Maybe, the only downside might be the lack of DNF on some systems.

softwarefactory-project-zuul · 2023-07-11T08:18:24Z

Build failed.
https://softwarefactory-project.io/zuul/t/packit-service/buildset/904eb6465f9a433b81d56d912add66ac

❌ pre-commit FAILURE in 39s
❌ ogr-tests-rpm RETRY_LIMIT in 44s
❌ ogr-tests-pip-deps RETRY_LIMIT in 37s
❌ ogr-reverse-dep-packit-tests FAILURE in 46s

softwarefactory-project-zuul · 2023-07-13T07:43:57Z

Build failed.
https://softwarefactory-project.io/zuul/t/packit-service/buildset/4ce13b494a7c46afa1d7bee56a209501

✔️ pre-commit SUCCESS in 1m 39s
❌ ogr-tests-rpm FAILURE in 10m 33s
❌ ogr-tests-pip-deps FAILURE in 10m 49s
✔️ ogr-reverse-dep-packit-tests SUCCESS in 14m 34s

lbarcziova · 2023-07-18T13:16:29Z

recheck

softwarefactory-project-zuul · 2023-07-18T13:33:25Z

Build failed.
https://softwarefactory-project.io/zuul/t/packit-service/buildset/9076304206264bbc81eed7b48d930974

✔️ pre-commit SUCCESS in 1m 45s
❌ ogr-tests-rpm FAILURE in 10m 23s
❌ ogr-tests-pip-deps FAILURE in 10m 24s
✔️ ogr-reverse-dep-packit-tests SUCCESS in 14m 53s

Signed-off-by: Tomas Tomecek <ttomecek@redhat.com>

TF downloads both RPMs and SRPM (rebuilt by Copr), so we can run rpminspect on all of them in one step.

softwarefactory-project-zuul · 2024-12-18T07:10:45Z

Build succeeded.
https://softwarefactory-project.io/zuul/t/packit-service/buildset/73856f30f96b45bdaf7ad8df922a0973

✔️ pre-commit SUCCESS in 2m 40s
✔️ ogr-tests-pip-deps SUCCESS in 17m 03s

LecrisUT · 2024-12-18T16:29:34Z

Actually things have evolved a bit here. How about using the packit/tmt-plans repo? https://github.com/packit/tmt-plans/tree/main/plans/rpminspect. Iirc there was an issue with rpminspect on rawhide related to rpminspect itself, but if the current ones are working fine, maybe it is resolved. Alternatively we could work on https://github.com/fedora-ci/rpminspect-pipeline to make it copr compatible, the benefit being that in that case it's the same container that is used in Fedora-CI

lbarcziova mentioned this pull request May 22, 2023

rpminspect fails for packit built srpms with %autorelease and update_release: true packit/packit#1978

Closed

jpopelka approved these changes May 22, 2023

View reviewed changes

lbarcziova force-pushed the test-rpminspect branch from ab93f1b to abf740a Compare June 13, 2023 14:22

LecrisUT reviewed Jun 23, 2023

View reviewed changes

lbarcziova force-pushed the test-rpminspect branch from abf740a to ce3cc57 Compare July 11, 2023 08:14

TomasTomecek and others added 4 commits December 18, 2024 07:52

verify RPMs using rpminspect

f575b54

Signed-off-by: Tomas Tomecek <ttomecek@redhat.com>

rpminspect tests: exclude metadata check, check distro

0244252

Rename rpminspect plans

864cb13

Run rpminspect on the SRPM rebuilt by Copr

e1adbeb

TF downloads both RPMs and SRPM (rebuilt by Copr), so we can run rpminspect on all of them in one step.

lbarcziova force-pushed the test-rpminspect branch from 8ff307c to e1adbeb Compare December 18, 2024 06:52

	script: cd /tmp && curl -O ${PACKIT_SRPM_URL}
	script: dnf download ${PACKIT_COPR_RPMS} --destdir=$TMT_PLAN_DATA

Conversation

lbarcziova commented May 22, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

softwarefactory-project-zuul bot commented May 22, 2023

Uh oh!

softwarefactory-project-zuul bot commented May 22, 2023

Uh oh!

mfocko commented May 29, 2023

Uh oh!

lbarcziova commented Jun 1, 2023

Uh oh!

LecrisUT commented Jun 6, 2023

Uh oh!

softwarefactory-project-zuul bot commented Jun 13, 2023

Uh oh!

mfocko commented Jun 23, 2023

Uh oh!

LecrisUT Jun 23, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

lachmanfrantisek Jul 3, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

lbarcziova Jul 11, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

LecrisUT Jul 11, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

lachmanfrantisek Jul 11, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

lachmanfrantisek Jul 11, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

softwarefactory-project-zuul bot commented Jul 11, 2023

Uh oh!

softwarefactory-project-zuul bot commented Jul 13, 2023

Uh oh!

lbarcziova commented Jul 18, 2023

Uh oh!

softwarefactory-project-zuul bot commented Jul 18, 2023

Uh oh!

softwarefactory-project-zuul bot commented Dec 18, 2024

Uh oh!

LecrisUT commented Dec 18, 2024

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants

lbarcziova commented May 22, 2023 •

edited

Loading

lachmanfrantisek Jul 11, 2023 •

edited

Loading