On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:51:05 +0000 James Laska
<jlaska(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> CC +jhutar for rpmfluff comments below ...
>
> On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 08:03 -0500, Kamil Paral wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm happy to announce that in the git there is a
> > kparal/rpmguard-integration branch available containing my
> > latest effort to bring rpmguard to autoqa. I would be glad
> > for any feedback provided. If you want to see it in action
> > easily, you can run e.g. this command:
> >
> > $ autoqa post-koji-build --name ctdb --kojitag
> > dist-f12-updates-candidate --arch x86_64 --arch i686
> > ctdb-1.0.108-1.fc12 -t rpmguard (append --local if you have
> > only autotest-client installed)
> >
> > That should be working until ctdb gets the update-candidate
> > tag off. Example output is here:
> >
http://pastebin.com/m73c45d08
> >
> > I have some concerns about current implementation, what
> > should be improved and when the test could fail, but I'll
> > cover that in some further emails.
> >
> > What about the output format, Will? Should something be
> > changed?
>
> Another nice thing about your branch is the built-in test code
> 'rpmguard_test.py'. I noticed that it relies on rpmfluff [1]
> which isn't packaged yet.
>
> Anyone interested in packaging rpmfluff for Fedora?
>
> Thanks,
> James
>
> [1]
https://fedorahosted.org/rpmfluff/
>
Hello,
I have rpmfluff packaged in:
https://fedorahosted.org/releases/r/p/rpmfluff/
and if you want, I can start with getting it into the Fedora.
Should I?
It's probably not going to inhibit the package review of autoqa since
rpmfluff is only used during Kamil's rpmguard test procedures. However,
rpmguard seems like a generally useful tool.
If you have time to submit a review request, that would be great --