Support more packit distros

[LecrisUT]

It should support all fedora, eln and epel now. It also fixes the wrong value for rawhide tag (should not fXX-updates, but fXX)

[LecrisUT]

Does not really work for epel because of packit/packit-service#2924 could try another approach

[yselkowitz]

@LecrisUT can we at least get this fixed for eln?

[LecrisUT]

It is my bad for being slow to update PRs, but packit/packit-service#2924 is moving forward, and I want to go with that approach instead. I can work on that assumption now and move this forward based on that change merging.

[LecrisUT]

@yselkowitz do you have an eln scratch build I can test it on. Locally it seems to work correctly for epel

[yselkowitz]

@LecrisUT just created one: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=141624540

[LecrisUT]

Oh dang, the script here does not account for scratch builds that are not tied to PRs. Other than that though it seems to be working correctly. Can you double check the verbose.log below, particularly on the rpminspect command variables and make sure all is as expected?

Checking the component-specific rpminspect config file...
+ for ext in ${exts}
+ '[' -f rpminspect.yaml ']'
+ echo '=> rpminspect.yaml contents:'
=> rpminspect.yaml contents:
+ cat rpminspect.yaml
# Set up global ignore list
# The 'gethostbyname' func is used only in the lib/rtapelib.c file
# We've decided it's not a risk due to the fact that it's used for open the magnetic tape function
badfuncs:
    allowed:
        /usr/bin/cpio:
            - gethostbyname
+ for ext in ${exts}
+ '[' -f rpminspect.json ']'
+ for ext in ${exts}
+ '[' -f rpminspect.dson ']'
+ rpm -qa
+ grep rpminspect
librpminspect-2.1-1.1.202601292024git9e2ec946.x86_64
rpminspect-2.1-1.1.202601292024git9e2ec946.x86_64
rpminspect-data-fedora-1.16-4.fc44.noarch
+ /usr/bin/rpminspect -c /usr/share/rpminspect/fedora.yaml --workdir /var/tmp/tmt/run-062/rpminspect/discover/default-0/tests/workdir/ --format=json --output=/var/tmp/tmt/run-062/rpminspect/execute/data/guest/default-0/rpminspect-1/data/result.json --verbose --release=eln154 cpio-2.15-9.eln154 141624540
Downloading task 141624540
>>> cpio-2.15-8.eln154.src.rpm
>>> cpio-debugsource-2.15-8.eln154.x86_64.rpm
>>> cpio-debuginfo-2.15-8.eln154.x86_64.rpm
>>> cpio-2.15-8.eln154.x86_64.rpm
>>> cpio-debuginfo-2.15-8.eln154.aarch64.rpm
>>> cpio-2.15-8.eln154.aarch64.rpm
>>> cpio-debugsource-2.15-8.eln154.aarch64.rpm
>>> cpio-2.15-8.eln154.ppc64le.rpm
>>> cpio-debuginfo-2.15-8.eln154.ppc64le.rpm
>>> cpio-debugsource-2.15-8.eln154.ppc64le.rpm
>>> cpio-2.15-8.eln154.s390x.rpm
>>> cpio-debugsource-2.15-8.eln154.s390x.rpm
>>> cpio-debuginfo-2.15-8.eln154.s390x.rpm
Downloading RPM build cpio-2.15-9.eln154
>>> cpio-2.15-9.eln154.src.rpm
>>> cpio-debuginfo-2.15-9.eln154.x86_64.rpm
>>> cpio-2.15-9.eln154.x86_64.rpm
>>> cpio-debugsource-2.15-9.eln154.x86_64.rpm
>>> cpio-debuginfo-2.15-9.eln154.aarch64.rpm
>>> cpio-debugsource-2.15-9.eln154.aarch64.rpm
>>> cpio-2.15-9.eln154.aarch64.rpm
>>> cpio-2.15-9.eln154.ppc64le.rpm
>>> cpio-debugsource-2.15-9.eln154.ppc64le.rpm
>>> cpio-debuginfo-2.15-9.eln154.ppc64le.rpm
>>> cpio-2.15-9.eln154.s390x.rpm
>>> cpio-debugsource-2.15-9.eln154.s390x.rpm
>>> cpio-debuginfo-2.15-9.eln154.s390x.rpm
Running abidiff inspection...        pass
Running addedfiles inspection...     pass
Running annocheck inspection...      pass
Running arch inspection...           pass
rpminspect: ../lib/inspect_badfuncs.c:33: allowed_symbol: Assertion `symbol != NULL' failed.

[LecrisUT]

Ping @yselkowitz for feedback confirmation on this

[thrix]

@LecrisUT seems "I" found something

[thrix]

  Critical Issues
  ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┬──────────────┐
  │                               Issue                                │    Status    │
  ├────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┼──────────────┤
  │ Rawhide: uses version ("rawhide") instead of version_number ("45") │ 🐛 CONFIRMED │
  └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┴──────────────┘

Verified Working
  ┌─────────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
  │      Code Path      │                        Verification                         │
  ├─────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
  │ ELN                 │ ✅ Koji returns rpm.macro.eln: 155 → outputs eln155 and eln │
  ├─────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
  │ EPEL 9              │ ✅ version=9 → outputs el9 and epel9 (valid Koji tag)       │
  ├─────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
  │ EPEL 10.x           │ ✅ version=10.2 → outputs el10_2 and epel10.2               │
  ├─────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
  │ Fedora stable (f42) │ ✅ version=42 → outputs fc42 and f42-updates                │
  ├─────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
  │ Rawhide tag logic   │ ✅ Using fXX instead of fXX-updates is correct for rawhide  │
  └─────────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

[LecrisUT]

│ Rawhide tag logic │ ✅ Using fXX instead of fXX-updates is correct for rawhide │

Lol, evidently not, because it did expand to fcrawhide. It did not create an issue, and I am 🤷 on that. Don't even know why we need the previous_tag in that script

[yselkowitz]

Here's an ELN PR you can use for testing: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/lorax-templates-rhel/pull-request/26

[LecrisUT]

Ping @thrix