Make sure .spec and .spec in SRPM are the same

[FrostyX]

The fedora-review tool itself checks it but this won't work for Copr, and therefore even for us.

1. The copr-review-service finds "SRPM URL" link in RHBZ and sends it to Copr
2. Copr builds the SRPM and produces a results directory with .rpm, .src.rpm, and .spec files that all came from the initial SRPM
3. Copr runs fedora-review on the results and those two .spec files will always be the same
4. The "Spec URL" from RHBZ was never considered

We need to do the check manually.

[pemensik]

I am not sure spec URL should even be required, if we are able to do all things without it. I think the spec file is much easier to work with. But srpm will always contain also spec file. I do not see a need to bother user with uploading two different things, when one can be delivered from the other one.

Instead it might make sense to use the service to extract spec file from the linked SRPM and attach it as attachment to the review bug. Similarly if the spec contains only resources fetchable by spectool -g, then we should not require the user to provide srpm manually. Many reviews need any of those files. Especially if I use something like git for spec file, then the need to upload somewhere also srpm is quite annoying.

Could we just say aloud we ignore unnecessary spec and instead provide link to extracted spec from the srpm? Why should we enforce duplicate copies?

[FrostyX]

Could we just say aloud we ignore unnecessary spec and instead provide link to extracted spec from the srpm? Why should we enforce duplicate copies?

I think we can't just yet because AFAIK the fedora-review tool still expects it if used with -b parameter, and also not all reviewers might be on board with this change.

But I quite like the idea. Maybe we should propose it on some official place?

[pemensik]

I think we might have then create bug or pull request to fedora-review tool. I understand it is useful for manual reviews. But when automated tool is involved, I do not see a reason for manual preparation, when the same can be obtained by automated step. Creating spec from srpm is as easy as rpm2cpio $SRPM | cpio -i '*.spec'.

Both fedora-review and fedora-create-review can extract spec file without bothering the user about it. I do not see a reason to force user to provide it extra way. Yes, I guess we should raise that idea to wider audience.

[pemensik]

Created issue on Fedora-review upstream: https://pagure.io/FedoraReview/issue/469