Bug 33569 - mga-advisor not fill fields with the right information
Summary: mga-advisor not fill fields with the right information
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Mageia
Classification: Unclassified
Component: RPM Packages (show other bugs)
Version: Cauldron
Hardware: All Linux
Priority: Normal normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: papoteur
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2024-09-19 00:26 CEST by katnatek
Modified: 2024-12-16 09:45 CET (History)
0 users

See Also:
Source RPM: mga-advisor
CVE:
Status comment:


Attachments

Description katnatek 2024-09-19 00:26:32 CEST
Description of problem:

In some bugs this tool fail to fill subject and source fields with accurate information.

By example bug#33413

Field subject is "Updated java java java java-latest-openjdk packages fix security vulnerabilities", and source field is empty.

Bug#33409 , subject field is "Updated 0 0 packages fix security vulnerabilities" and source field is empty

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:


Steps to Reproduce:
1. run mga-advisor
2. in bug number field put one of the bugs refered if are not solved yet  
3. click on retrive info
4. see the error described
Comment 1 papoteur 2024-09-19 08:50:50 CEST
Hi katnatek,
Subject field is populated with a list of packages recovered from Source RPM field. The two defects are in fact the same misbehavior.
A regular expression is applied to the names read in Source RPM. This rule detect a first occurrence of a dash followed by a number and keep what is before which include any word, _, -, +. The aim is to have the source name, without version nor release extension. Dot is not considered as valid in the name.
In cases of java-1.8.0-openjdk, part -1.8.0-openjdk is seen as a version/release number, thus is removed and we get only "java".

In case of gtk+2.0-2.24.33-5.mga9.src.rpm, the dot of 2.0 is not included in the part name, thus the name is reduced to the 0 after the dot.

If I include the dot as possible character in the name, I catch the version number with the name, and I don't want that.
I don't any solution as I think that these names are ambiguous. Perhaps some rpm gurus how to deal with that.

For now, I suggest to leave this corner case as is.
katnatek 2024-11-06 19:05:32 CET

See Also: (none) => https://bugs.mageia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33729

Comment 2 katnatek 2024-11-19 18:49:47 CET Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 3 papoteur 2024-12-16 09:45:56 CET
I have done a branch for usage with libdnf5.

This is based on:
- getting the packages cited in Source RPM field, 
- extracting the name
- searching the package in Testing reposotories having said name
- adding the source package names removing .src at end.
File dnfmadbbase comes from MADb
config.py.in has to be copied in config.py and adapted to the location 
where dnf cache will be written and to the mirror to use.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.