Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RPM generators errors are ignored (#1183)

2020-06-24 Thread Panu Matilainen
Yup, and there's more: every caller of rpmfcExec() does so with slightly different expectations of what will happen in what situations, and rpmfcHelper() was doing +1 on errors whereas the lower layers were returning -1 and ... whatnot. It needs a *careful* review on reapproach. -- You are

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RPM generators errors are ignored (#1183)

2020-06-24 Thread soig
For references, here's the fallout: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1285 -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RPM generators errors are ignored (#1183)

2020-06-24 Thread Panu Matilainen
Reopening as the fix was reverted (it was just too broken to live) -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RPM generators errors are ignored (#1183)

2020-06-24 Thread Panu Matilainen
Reopened #1183. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1183#event-3476265711___ Rpm-maint mailing list

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RPM generators errors are ignored (#1183)

2020-06-23 Thread Panu Matilainen
Closed #1183 via #1271. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1183#event-3472161387___ Rpm-maint mailing list

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RPM generators errors are ignored (#1183)

2020-06-02 Thread torsava
> There are 3 things I'd like to see fixed: > > * the traceback should say: `Cannot process Python package version: 0+unknown` > * the build should abort on errors > * the version is [actually > valid](https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0440/#local-version-identifiers) First and last issue

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RPM generators errors are ignored (#1183)

2020-04-20 Thread torsava
> @torsava OK, let's wait for the next unexpected error. But wrapping > everything in try-except and failing with useful error message is not a bad > idea. Ok, I'll add it to my PR. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RPM generators errors are ignored (#1183)

2020-04-20 Thread Miro Hrončok
@torsava OK, let's wait for the next unexpected error. But wrapping everything in try-except and failing with useful error message is not a bad idea. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RPM generators errors are ignored (#1183)

2020-04-20 Thread Miro Hrončok
The almost-backwards-compatible way would be to have a specific exit code that should abort the build. E.g. "exit with 66 to abort the build". Technically, I think it is possible to abort the build by generating an invalid dependency, but that is hardly an API. -- You are receiving this

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RPM generators errors are ignored (#1183)

2020-04-20 Thread Panu Matilainen
Yup, the generator failure handling is a funny mess: - in legacy generators (the "external generator") only provide generation can cause build-failure - in current generators, all script error codes are ignored - ...except for buildrequires generator where script errors cause build failure Of

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RPM generators errors are ignored (#1183)

2020-04-20 Thread torsava
> the exception when the conversion fails is not telling anything useful As this was an unexpected error, we don't know at what point in the code the next unexpected error would strike. So the way I see it we would have to wrap the whole machinery in `try..except` which isn't great, or do you