[git-buildpackage] git-buildpackage-rpm patchset 2015-11-20

[Markus Lehtonen]

On 08/12/15 10:47, "git-buildpackage on behalf of Markus Lehtonen" <git-buildpackage-bounces at lists.sigxcpu.org on behalf of markus.lehtonen at linux.intel.com> wrote:

>On 07/12/15 10:11, "Guido Günther" <agx at sigxcpu.org> wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 12:44:17PM +0200, Markus Lehtonen wrote:
>>> Hi Guido,
>>> 
>>> On Wed, 2015-12-02 at 22:00 +0100, Guido Günther wrote:
>>> > Hi Markus,
>>> > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 01:58:17PM +0200, Markus Lehtonen wrote:
>>> > > On 01/12/15 19:35, "git-buildpackage on behalf of Guido Günther" <git-buildpackage-bounces at lists.sigxcpu.org on behalf of agx at sigxcpu.org> wrote:
>>> > > 
>>> > > >Hi Markus,
>>> > > >On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 09:51:24AM +0200, Markus Lehtonen wrote:
>>> > > >> Hi,
>>> > > >> 
>>> > > >> On 27/11/15 17:38, "Guido Günther" <agx at sigxcpu.org> wrote:
>>> > > >> 
>>> > > >> >Hi Markus,
>>> > > >> >On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 04:43:56PM +0200, Markus Lehtonen wrote:
>>> > > >> 
>>> 
>>> [...SNIP...]
>>> > > >> 
>>> > > >> Is there something specific? At least it shouldn't affect (deb
>>> > > >> )buildpackage at all because zip archives are not supported there.
>>> > > >
>>> > > >Mostly misreading the code on my end too early in the morning. I'll have
>>> > > >to run the performance tests to see if git_archive_submodules regresses
>>> > > >once merged but that should be about it.
>>> > > 
>>> > > OK.
>>> > 
>>> > Merged now. I fixed the case where we don't have the submodules checked
>>> > out too.
>>> 
>>> Great news! I now rebased all my github branches on top of the latest
>>> master.
>>> 
>>> If you could pull the first two patches from 'feature/buildpackage-rpm'
>>> branch:
>>> - "buildpackage_rpm: implement --native option"
>>> - "tests: enable unit tests for buildpackage-rpm"
>>> we would get much wider test coverage for buildpackage-rpm.
>>
>>Code looks good but the tests fail with:
>>
>>FAIL: Test pristine-tar
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Traceback (most recent call last):
>>  File "/var/scratch/src/git-buildpackage/git-buildpackage/tests/component/rpm/test_buildpackage_rpm.py", line 302, in test_pristine_tar
>>    '--git-export=release/1.1-2']), 0)
>>AssertionError: 1 != 0
>>-------------------- >> begin captured logging << --------------------
>>gbp: error: Pristine-tar couldn't checkout "gbp-test-1.1.tar.bz2": xdelta: /tmp/pristine-tar.mEU390eTIn/gbp-test-1.1.tar.bz2.tmp: Checksum validation failed, expected: 265b4dff1de8f26a17b946e5a630409b, received: ce6467318f5daac306652e333b306b8d
>>xdelta: /tmp/pristine-tar.sCnNaBXW_z/recreatetarball: Checksum validation failed, expected: f775beac9396e94011e38702b31fbc3f, received: 2fce38a831368c0f330ce000b9fbcf68
>>xdelta: /tmp/pristine-tar.mEU390eTIn/gbp-test-1.1.tar.bz2.tmp: Checksum validation failed, expected: 265b4dff1de8f26a17b946e5a630409b, received: ce6467318f5daac306652e333b306b8d
>>xdelta: /tmp/pristine-tar.sCnNaBXW_z/recreatetarball: Checksum validation failed, expected: f775beac9396e94011e38702b31fbc3f, received: 2fce38a831368c0f330ce000b9fbcf68
>>xdelta: /tmp/pristine-tar.mEU390eTIn/gbp-test-1.1.tar.bz2.tmp: Checksum validation failed, expected: 265b4dff1de8f26a17b946e5a630409b, received: ce6467318f5daac306652e333b306b8d
>>xdelta: /tmp/pristine-tar.nFxP9SyhYd/recreatetarball: Checksum validation failed, expected: f775beac9396e94011e38702b31fbc3f, received: 2fce38a831368c0f330ce000b9fbcf68
>>xdelta: /tmp/pristine-tar.mEU390eTIn/gbp-test-1.1.tar.bz2.tmp: Checksum validation failed, expected: 265b4dff1de8f26a17b946e5a630409b, received: cb73a92ae9161bceb06f939f9b7d90f9
>>xdelta: /tmp/pristine-tar.u6WGMbK8pF/recreatetarball: Checksum validation failed, expected: f775beac9396e94011e38702b31fbc3f, received: 892e08a52dfe8c2d78134dcf8c773923
>>pristine-tar: Failed to reproduce original tarball. Please file a bug report.
>>pristine-tar: failed to generate tarball
>>--------------------- >> end captured logging << ---------------------
>>
>>Very likely due to different pristine-tar versions (1.33 here). I did
>>not get around to have a closer look though.
>
>Oh, I should've anticipated that. Actually, it is probably not because of pristine-tar but tar as Debian-based distributions use different default archive format than most other distributions. I have to take a closer look at the pristine-tar stuff.
>
>I will remove this pristine-tar test for now. I'll let you know when I have an updated patchset available.

I ended up changing the pristine-tar branches in the test repos instead of dropping the test. Updated patch can be found in my 'feature/buildpackage-rpm' branch. All tests should pass now.


Thanks,
  Markus