spec: require golang-github-cpuguy83-md2man

[sandrobonazzola]

explicitly require golang-github-cpuguy83-md2man instead of %{_bindir}/go-md2man and added a note about where to find it on CentOS Stream 9.

Fixes #120

[lsm5]

@sandrobonazzola RE: go-md2man, did dnf builddep rpm/qm.spec not fetch the correct package?

Also, rpmautospec-rpm-macros doesn't seem to be available on el9 yet.

[sandrobonazzola]

rpmautospec-rpm-macros is in epel9 ;I think that if we don't want to rely on it we should drop its usage in the spec file.

[lsm5]

rpmautospec-rpm-macros is in epel9 ;I think that if we don't want to rely on it we should drop its usage in the spec file.

@sandrobonazzola could you please point me to the exact issue you were seeing with autospec usage without the rpmautospec-rpm-macros build dependency?

[sandrobonazzola]

# rpmbuild -ba rpm/qm.spec
RPM build errors:
    line 40: Possible unexpanded macro in: Release: %autorelease
    line 40: Possible unexpanded macro in: Release: %autorelease
    %changelog entries must start with *

[lsm5]

# rpmbuild -ba rpm/qm.spec
RPM build errors:
    line 40: Possible unexpanded macro in: Release: %autorelease
    line 40: Possible unexpanded macro in: Release: %autorelease
    %changelog entries must start with *

hmm, wonder why that never showed up on copr builds. I would prefer not to enable epel on the packit-builds copr used in CI. I'll PR to remove autospec for el9.

[lsm5]

@pypingou RE: qm / hirte and other tools, has there been any further movement on creating a unified copr? If there's gonna be a separate copr (and not something owned by rhcontainerbot), then if people wanna keep epel enabled, fine by me.

[lsm5]

#124

[dougsland]

# rpmbuild -ba rpm/qm.spec
RPM build errors:
    line 40: Possible unexpanded macro in: Release: %autorelease
    line 40: Possible unexpanded macro in: Release: %autorelease
    %changelog entries must start with *

hmm, wonder why that never showed up on copr builds. I would prefer not to enable epel on the packit-builds
copr used in CI. I'll PR to remove autospec for el9.

@lsm5 I noticed this issue in the past: #85 but never fixed as it's never affected the software. However, if we can fix it's even better. Yes, it shows in the CI/CD build logs.

[dougsland]

@sandrobonazzola Could you please check the error msg from the builds?

Start: build phase for qm-0.4.2-1.20230721114052194964.pr122.60.g4313cdc.el9.src.rpm
Start: build setup for qm-0.4.2-1.20230721114052194964.pr122.60.g4313cdc.el9.src.rpm
warning: line 55: Possible unexpanded macro in: BuildRequires: selinux-policy >= %_selinux_policy_version
warning: line 56: Possible unexpanded macro in: BuildRequires: selinux-policy-devel >= %_selinux_policy_version
warning: line 57: Possible unexpanded macro in: Requires: selinux-policy >= %_selinux_policy_version
warning: line 58: Possible unexpanded macro in: Requires(post): selinux-policy-base >= %_selinux_policy_version
warning: line 59: Possible unexpanded macro in: Requires(post): selinux-policy-targeted >= %_selinux_policy_version
error: %changelog entries must start with *
Building target platforms: x86_64
Building for target x86_64
Wrote: /builddir/build/SRPMS/qm-0.4.2-1.20230721114052194964.pr122.60.g4313cdc.el9.src.rpm
No matches found for the following disable plugin patterns: local, spacewalk, versionlock
Copr repository                                  65 kB/s | 1.8 kB     00:00    
Package make-1:4.3-7.el9.x86_64 is already installed.
No matching package to install: 'rpmautospec-rpm-macros'
Not all dependencies satisfied
Error: Some packages could not be found.
WARNING: DNF command failed, retrying, attempt #2, sleeping 10s
No matches found for the following disable plugin patterns: local, spacewalk, versionlock
Copr repository                                  61 kB/s | 1.8 kB     00:00    
Package make-1:4.3-7.el9.x86_64 is already installed.
No matching package to install: 'rpmautospec-rpm-macros'
Not all dependencies satisfied
Error: Some packages could not be found.
WARNING: DNF command failed, retrying, attempt #3, sleeping 10s
No matches found for the following disable plugin patterns: local, spacewalk, versionlock
Copr repository                                  64 kB/s | 1.8 kB     00:00    
Package make-1:4.3-7.el9.x86_64 is already installed.
No matching package to install: 'rpmautospec-rpm-macros'
Not all dependencies satisfied
Error: Some packages could not be found.

From: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/rhcontainerbot/packit-builds/centos-stream-9-x86_64/06197715-qm/builder-live.log.gz

[dougsland]

@pypingou RE: qm / hirte and other tools, has there been any further movement on creating a unified copr? If
there's gonna be a separate copr (and not something owned by rhcontainerbot), then if people wanna keep
epel enabled, fine by me.

[Following the thread to learn]
@pypingou has mentioned some weeks ago a unique and official repo for centos auto (instead of having "non official repos from copr to ship our bits)

/cc @rhatdan

[lsm5]

[Following the thread to learn] @pypingou has mentioned some weeks ago a unique and official repo for centos auto (instead of having "non official repos from copr to ship our bits)

ack RE: shipping. How about the copr used in CI for PRs? The current copr is rhcontainerbot/packit-builds which is also used by podman, buildah and others.

[rhatdan]

I am all for official location.

[pypingou]

We have the automotive SIG repository which is where I've built the qm package https://buildlogs.centos.org/9-stream/automotive/aarch64/packages-main/Packages/q/ before it lands into autosd and down the line into RHIVOS proper.

On Copr we have a group: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/groups/g/centos-automotive-sig/coprs/ but there is no single copr repo, copr is for experiment, we want things that are not just experiments to land either in the automotive SIG or in AutoSD proper.

[lsm5]

We have the automotive SIG repository which is where I've built the qm package https://buildlogs.centos.org/9-stream/automotive/aarch64/packages-main/Packages/q/ before it lands into autosd and down the line into RHIVOS proper.

On Copr we have a group: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/groups/g/centos-automotive-sig/coprs/ but there is no single copr repo, copr is for experiment, we want things that are not just experiments to land either in the automotive SIG or in AutoSD proper.

As a first step, maybe it's worth switching Packit copr tasks to use the automotive-sig coprs in https://github.com/containers/qm/blob/main/.packit.yaml . Currently, it uses rhcontainerbot/packit-builds and rhcontainerbot/qm coprs.

[dougsland]

[Following the thread to learn] @pypingou has mentioned some weeks ago a unique and official repo for centos auto (instead of having "non official repos from copr to ship our bits)

ack RE: shipping. How about the copr used in CI for PRs? The current copr is rhcontainerbot/packit-builds which is also used by podman, buildah and others.

@lsm5 +1

[dougsland]

We have the automotive SIG repository which is where I've built the qm package
https://buildlogs.centos.org/9-stream/automotive/aarch64/packages-main/Packages/q/ before it lands into
autosd and down the line into RHIVOS proper.

On Copr we have a group: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/groups/g/centos-automotive-sig/coprs/ but there is
no single copr repo, copr is for experiment, we want things that are not just experiments to land either in the
automotive SIG or in AutoSD proper.

@pypingou can we officially replace copr/mperina from hirte project (https://github.com/containers/hirte/blob/fadad7dee7ba67cec29fefd4f7c08660d2db8da6/README.md?plain=1#L25) to use this official repo you mentioned? (https://buildlogs.centos.org/9-stream/automotive/aarch64/packages-main/Packages/h/)

[dougsland]

We have the automotive SIG repository which is where I've built the qm package https://buildlogs.centos.org/9-stream/automotive/aarch64/packages-main/Packages/q/ before it lands into autosd and down the line into RHIVOS proper.
On Copr we have a group: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/groups/g/centos-automotive-sig/coprs/ but there is no single copr repo, copr is for experiment, we want things that are not just experiments to land either in the automotive SIG or in AutoSD proper.

As a first step, maybe it's worth switching Packit copr tasks to use the automotive-sig coprs in https://github.com/containers/qm/blob/main/.packit.yaml . Currently, it uses rhcontainerbot/packit-builds and rhcontainerbot/qm coprs.

@lsm5 are you looking to this task? Should we create an issue in GH?

[lsm5]

As a first step, maybe it's worth switching Packit copr tasks to use the automotive-sig coprs in https://github.com/containers/qm/blob/main/.packit.yaml . Currently, it uses rhcontainerbot/packit-builds and rhcontainerbot/qm coprs.

@lsm5 are you looking to this task? Should we create an issue in GH?

@dougsland I'd rather someone else more active on qm take the lead here.

[lsm5]

As a first step, maybe it's worth switching Packit copr tasks to use the automotive-sig coprs in https://github.com/containers/qm/blob/main/.packit.yaml . Currently, it uses rhcontainerbot/packit-builds and rhcontainerbot/qm coprs.

@lsm5 are you looking to this task? Should we create an issue in GH?

@dougsland I'd rather someone else more active on qm take the lead here.

It would involve setting up the new copr(s) and then updating .packit.yaml to use those coprs.

[dougsland]

As a first step, maybe it's worth switching Packit copr tasks to use the automotive-sig coprs in https://github.com/containers/qm/blob/main/.packit.yaml . Currently, it uses rhcontainerbot/packit-builds and rhcontainerbot/qm coprs.

@lsm5 are you looking to this task? Should we create an issue in GH?

@dougsland I'd rather someone else more active on qm take the lead here.

@lsm5 could you please just open an issue against QM with your view and steps which we should approach? I can take the lead to make it happen.

[dougsland]

@sandrobonazzola thanks for your patches, merging now !