Am Do., 18. Jan. 2024 um 17:14 Uhr schrieb Jerry James <loganje...@gmail.com>: > > On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 3:32 PM Sérgio Basto <ser...@serjux.com> wrote: > > You got mass rebuild script here [1] in massrebuildsinfo.py [2] you may > > define what packages you are going to rebuild , in line 93 of mass- > > rebuild.py [3] you got the list of packages that you go rebuild > > and since line 132 [4] you have the commands that will run . > > Is rpmdev-bumpspec that fails ? > > Thank you for the pointer, Sérgio. I have opened > https://pagure.io/releng/pull-request/11897. > > It is not rpmdev-bumpspec that fails. That works just fine. But any > package that uses the %{fontpkgname1}, %{fontpkgname2}, ... macros > requires --no-verify today when pushing to git, due to the referenced > bug. That's merely annoying for a human, but fatal to an automated > build script that doesn't pass --noverify.
No, that's not the case. Please re-read the bug. For *some* of the packages among those which use these macros (but definitely not all), the python bindings to rpm do not expand that macro whereas rpm itself does. Since `spectool` uses the bindings, its check for the presence of all source files fails if the source macro contains an unexpanded macro. The packages build fine. Whether it's the bindings' fault, or the spec files', or the rpm-font-macros' is unclear at this point. In any case the check *wrongly* indicates FTBFS. Michael -- _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
