Auto-tag Fedora package git repo from koji builds

January 26, 2012 in automation, fedora, git, packaging, tool

I often browse through various Fedora packages and miss having git tags in package repositories corresponding with builds done in koji. Therefore I created following simple bash script that will create git tags in current git repo (if it’s a Fedora package).


giturl=`fedpkg giturl`
if [ $? -ne 0 ];then
echo "This doesn't look like fedora package directory"
exit 1

pkgname=`echo "${giturl}" |\
sed -e 's|git://\(.*\)?.*|\1|'`
# make sure we are up-to-date
git fetch

# go through last 3 releases (incl. rawhide)
for dist in f15 f16 f17;do
builds=`koji list-tagged "${dist}" "${pkgname}" | \
grep "${pkgname}" | awk '{print $1}'`
for build in $builds;do
# task urls sometimes have ".git" suffix
git_sha=`koji buildinfo "${build}" | grep '^Task:' | \
sed -e "s|.*${pkgname}\(\.git\)*:\(.*\))|\2|"`
version=`echo $build | sed -e "s:${pkgname}-::"`
echo BUILD: $pkgname\($version\) = $git_sha
git tag "${version}" "${git_sha}"


fedora-review – Package reviews made easier

November 11, 2011 in fedora, json, packaging, projects, python, review, tool

For package to be included in default Fedora repositories, it has to go through process called package review. If you’ve done a few package reviews you know big chunks of this process are repeated ad-nausea in every review.
There have been quite a few tools aimed at automating and simplifying this process. However they all had one major flaw. They have been designed for reviewing specific class of packages, be it Perl, Python or generic C/C++ packages. Few us us decided to change this.
We used Tim Lauridsen’s FedoraReview package as a base for our work and started adding new features and tweaks. Current work has a website on fedorahosted where you’ll find all important information. Full feature list would be quite long, but I’ll list a few major things:
  • Bugzilla integration
  • Mock integration
  • JSON api for external plugins (more info further down)
  • Several automated tests
The tool runs all checks/tests on spec file and rpms and writes output into a text file. Snippet of the output looks like this:

Package Review

- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated

==== Generic ====
[ ]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[ ]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.

==== Java ====
[!]: MUST If package uses "-Dmaven.local.depmap" explain why it was needed in a comment
[!]: MUST If package uses "-Dmaven.test.skip=true" explain why it was needed in a comment

[!]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[!]: MUST If package uses "-Dmaven.local.depmap" explain why it was needed in a comment
[!]: MUST If package uses "-Dmaven.test.skip=true" explain why it was needed in a comment
We display only relevant results. In other words if there are no post/postun scriptlets there is no reason to include sanity output checking in the template. This will make more and more sense as we add more checks.


So how is it that different people will be able to write additional plugins for this review tool? We provide a relatively simple JSON api through stdin/stdout.
So to create a new check plugin you create a script or program in your language of choice. There is only one requirement:
  • Programming language has to have JSON format support

When the review tool runs your plugin it will send following message on its stdin:

"supported_api": 1,
"pkgname": "package name",
"version": "package version",
"release": "package release",
"spec":{ path: "path/to/spec",
"text": "spec text with expanded macros"},
"rpms":[ "path/to/rpm", ...],
"rpmlint": "rpmlint output",
"build_dir": "/path/to/src/directory/after/build"

When your plugin is done with checks it returns following message by writing it to stdout:

"command": "results",
"supported_api": 1,
"name": "CheckName",
"url": "URL to guidelines usually",
"group": "Group for this test.(Java, Perl, etc.)",
"text": "Check description that shows on review template",
"deprecates":["DeprecatedTest", ...]
"type": "MUST"|"SHOULD",
"result": "pass"|"fail"|"inconclusive",
"extra_output": "text",

If the plugin closes stdout without writing anything there, it means there were no relevant automated tests to run and no non-automated tests to include in template for manual evaluation. This is useful so we don’t include for example Perl-related test output for Java packages and vice-versa.


While the tool is already usable and soon to be packaged in Fedora, there are still quite a few things we want to improve:

  • Add more functions to API (currently there is just get_section)
  • Automate all automatable tests currently available
  • Get rid of redundant tests (don’t duplicate rpmlint)
  • Add more tests of course!
  • Maybe add templating support?

We have currently 3-4 active committers, checks for C/C++, generic, Java, R packages. There is already and example external plugin written in Perl. If you have any improvement ideas, bugreports or just want to tell us we suck because we should have done X…get in touch!