On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 12:25:23PM -0300, Eriberto Mota wrote: > Em dom., 26 de jul. de 2020 às 03:27, escreveu: >> Please have a look at the attached patch. It permits embedding >> the "blhc: ignore-line-regexp: REGEXP" in the build log. All >> lines (fully) matching REGEXP are then ignored (just like the >> --ignore-line option). What do you think? >> >> Eriberto: Would this also work for the CI issues you mentioned in >> #962990? > > Hi Simon, > > My last suggestion in #962990 is inappropriate because some systems in > Debian, as Salsa CI pipelines, run blhc automatically. Please, see > examples here[1][2][3][4]. > > [1] https://salsa.debian.org/debian/blhc/-/pipelines/158444 > [2] > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/blhc/-/blob/debian/master/debian/salsa-ci.yml > [3] https://salsa.debian.org/debian/ngetty/-/pipelines/149456 > [4] > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/ngetty/-/blob/debian/master/debian/salsa-ci.yml > > A manual option as --ignore-line will work for a final user but will > fail for automated systems as Salsa. So, I suggest a configuration > file in /etc/ with some rules. Thus, we will can send new rules to > allow you to release new versions with preinstalled rules. I think > this config file can have two sections, as shown below: > > [snip]
On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 05:05:05PM -0300, Eriberto wrote: > Updating... The /etc file is interesting because I will can provide > patches in Debian package to solve some bugs related to false > positives until you release a new upstream version. I think a file in /etc and manually managing it has the same issues as managing false positives in blhc itself. It prevents the package maintainer from handling false positives without outside help (unlike linitian which can be adapted by the package maintainer). Did you look at my approach about embedding the ignores inside the build log? This should work for local builds, CI and automatic build log parsing. And it can be fully controlled by the package maintainer. However, I never used the Salsa CI pipeline so feedback if that works (using my patch) is much appreciated. Regards Simon -- + privacy is necessary + using gnupg http://gnupg.org + public key id: 0x92FEFDB7E44C32F9
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
