Closed egbicker closed 1 year ago
Looking pretty good. What remains?
I'm still not seeing the script outputs in my RPM build in fc38 even when putting the command up in source0
I'm still not seeing the script outputs in my RPM build in fc38 even when putting the command up in source0
Ok, Ill work up an example.
See this build and branch https://github.com/ctc-oss/fapolicy-analyzer/actions/runs/5358449384/jobs/9720893621#step:8:94
Treating your json as a resource is the key. I mentioned it in a comment above, should have elaborated a little more.
It hit me a little late that the git archive call used to vendor the source is not going to package the patched file.
Moving the make build-info
call into the spec will be a better way to handle this anyways.
Took some time to think more on this and the build info can't be taken from just one place. It's an aggregation of steps along the way.
At a minimum it is two places
So the build-info.json is going to have keys added to it along the way, the build-info.py script will need to accept args that it inserts to the existing file.
I pushed a few commits that move things in this direction. See how that looks.
From the build-info.json in the el8 rpm from the latest action on this PR
{
"git_info": "9ddc0d0748b299feabfb57ca65acac3cfd010adc",
"os_info": "c2c57e772156 5.15.0-1040-azure",
"time_info": "Sat Jun 24 14:36:15 UTC 2023"
}
@jw3 This looks good, I fixed the test/dev usage for it but its working on my fc38 rpm build
I am going to run rc1 through fedora and see what the build info looks like over there before this merges.
Restored the use of the original about dialog
Added the build info in the comment section.
Capture build information and display it in the about dialog
Closes #823