Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

It claims a "Scratch build succeeded", but it used the old source tarball #29

Closed
mschwendt opened this issue Mar 1, 2015 · 7 comments
Closed

Comments

@mschwendt
Copy link

Hey, it's March 1st, not April 1st! You nearly got me, but I had doubts an upgrade would be that easy. See my comments at:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1197393

Latest upstream release: 3.6
Current version/release in rawhide: 3.5.2-1.fc22

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9103348
-> https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3350/9103350/build.log

Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.Fyqt2F

  • umask 022
  • cd /builddir/build/BUILD
  • cd /builddir/build/BUILD
  • rm -rf audacious-3.5.2
  • /usr/bin/bzip2 -dc /builddir/build/SOURCES/audacious-3.5.2.tar.bz2
  • /usr/bin/tar -xf -
@pypingou
Copy link
Member

pypingou commented Mar 1, 2015

I guess that is because you're not using %{version} in Source0:
http://pkgs.stg.fedoraproject.org/cgit/audacious.git/tree/audacious.spec#n18

@mschwendt
Copy link
Author

Using %version would make it too inconvenient to build snapshots and pre-releases.

@ralphbean
Copy link
Contributor

Hm.. I'm not sure there's a reasonable way for us to handle the case of your spec file.

FWIW, you can keep %{version} in the source url and still handle pre-releases like this:
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/task.git/tree/task.spec

@ralphbean
Copy link
Contributor

Hm. As a feature for the-new-hotness, we could check that the tarball downloaded by 'fedpkg sources' and the tarball downloaded by 'spectool' after bumping the version are not the same tarball.

  • We can't necessarily trust that they will have the same md5sum, since github tarballs are generated on-demand, and therefore have different timestamps.

@mschwendt
Copy link
Author

Yes, trying to "upgrade" the "sources" file cleanly would be a great idea. I'm sure other packages are affected, too.

Obviously, working around the issue is what I'll do in this package. Now that it affects a service like this. I'm aware of various things one can do with macros/conditionals. And as of Audacious 3.6 the needed tarball appends "-gtk3" to version, which cannot be copied verbatim for RPM %version anyway.

@ralphbean
Copy link
Contributor

We can't necessarily trust that they will have the same md5sum, since github tarballs are generated on-demand, and therefore have different timestamps.

In response, @nirik says "I guess you could unpack it and diff -Nur".

This sounds like a good plan to me.

@pypingou
Copy link
Member

pypingou commented Mar 5, 2015

I've been trying to reproduce the original problem we had with github, I downloaded the sources via two places (tags and commit), here is the output:

   wget https://github.com/fedora-infra/the-new-hotness/archive/0.3.3.tar.gz * 3     
$ sha256sum 0.3.3.tar.gz*                                                  
e02a21a3685f7019e7bd92964665d2f95338e3be306f99c54757239511fd62ab  0.3.3.tar.gz
e02a21a3685f7019e7bd92964665d2f95338e3be306f99c54757239511fd62ab  0.3.3.tar.gz.1
e02a21a3685f7019e7bd92964665d2f95338e3be306f99c54757239511fd62ab  0.3.3.tar.gz.2

  wget https://github.com/fedora-infra/the-new-hotness/archive4f10baed700eee823ff5c0d971fed0b04674f30f.zip * 3
$ sha256sum 4f10baed700eee823ff5c0d971fed0b04674f30f.zip*
467c0af71750c561ff62faeec60a2ba7bf1e477457da17cf8b8d9e7e9034e92a  4f10baed700eee823ff5c0d971fed0b04674f30f.zip
467c0af71750c561ff62faeec60a2ba7bf1e477457da17cf8b8d9e7e9034e92a  4f10baed700eee823ff5c0d971fed0b04674f30f.zip.1
467c0af71750c561ff62faeec60a2ba7bf1e477457da17cf8b8d9e7e9034e92a  4f10baed700eee823ff5c0d971fed0b04674f30f.zip.2

So looks like we're good for these two links

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants