Bug 1219540
Summary: | Review Request: ahc-tools - Tools for RDO-manager automatic health checks | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | John Trowbridge <jtrowbri> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Haïkel Guémar <karlthered> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | hguemar, karlthered, package-review, pranav913 |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | karlthered:
fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | ahc-tools-0.2.0-1.fc22 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2015-08-26 15:42:26 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
John Trowbridge
2015-05-07 14:34:31 UTC
Since you're not sponsored, you need to blocks the FE-NEEDSPONSOR ticket. I'll send you an email with some resources and about your sponsoring process :) A quick unofficial review: * Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/fedora/1219540-ahc- tools/diff.txt See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL * Source checksums https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/a/ahc-tools/ahc-tools-0.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f54f47164edf284a9d69b94150f31c2ddcf0e030093864372dc91aff549c7a6d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5a4e91ce671b8e3659a5fa90a394c9dcac2e20c5b51e3aaa58f630500a1598a0 diff -r also reports differences Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/fedora/1219540-ahc-tools/srpm/ahc-tools.spec 2015-05-08 11:56:09.178829614 +0000 +++ /home/fedora/1219540-ahc-tools/srpm-unpacked/ahc-tools.spec 2015-05-07 14:15:29.000000000 +0000 @@ -4,11 +4,11 @@ Name: ahc-tools Summary: Tools for RDO-manager automatic health checks -Version: 0.1.0 -Release: 1%{?dist} +Version: 0.1.0 +Release: 0.99.20150507.1415git%{?dist} License: ASL 2.0 Group: System Environment/Base URL: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/ahc-tools -Source0: https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/a/ahc-tools/ahc-tools-%{upstream_version}.tar.gz +Source0: ahc-tools-0.1.0.tar.gz BuildArch: noarch * Package doesn't install properly. * Empty README.rst Rpmlint ------- Checking: ahc-tools-0.1.0-0.99.20150507.1415git.fc21.noarch.rpm ahc-tools-0.1.0-0.99.20150507.1415git.fc21.src.rpm ahc-tools.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.0 ['0.1.0-0.99.20150507.1415git.fc21', '0.1.0-0.99.20150507.1415git'] ahc-tools.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/ahc-tools/README.rst ahc-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ahc-report ahc-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ahc-match ahc-tools.src: W: invalid-url Source0: ahc-tools-0.1.0.tar.gz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. Pranav, Thanks for the feedback. I just took the srpm from the build system we are using for RDO. I see now that that does not quite work for a packaging review. I built a srpm manually and put it here: http://trunk-mgt.rdoproject.org/repos/ahc-tools-0.1.1-1.fc21.src.rpm There are still not man pages for ahc-report or ahc-match, but these will be changing fairly dramatically in upcoming releases and have good help text for their somewhat limited current functionality. Thanks again for checking this out. Informal reviews for sponsorship: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218410 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1219662 Updated srpm and spec: SRPM: https://trown.fedorapeople.org/ahc-tools-0.2.0-1.fc23.src.rpm SPEC: https://trown.fedorapeople.org/ahc-tools.spec The Group is not required, I advise you to drop it when you'll import the package I hereby approve it into Fedora Packages Collection, please submit a SCM request. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/haikel/1219540-ahc-tools/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ahc-tools-0.2.0-1.fc23.noarch.rpm ahc-tools-0.2.0-1.fc23.src.rpm ahc-tools.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/ahc-tools/ahc-tools.conf 0640L ahc-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ahc-report ahc-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ahc-match 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ahc-tools.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/ahc-tools/ahc-tools.conf 0640L ahc-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ahc-report ahc-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ahc-match 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- ahc-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python2 config(ahc-tools) python(abi) python-hardware python-ironicclient python-oslo-config python-swiftclient Provides -------- ahc-tools: ahc-tools config(ahc-tools) Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/a/ahc-tools/ahc-tools-0.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9797dcf3d70d553d66b13ccfaa22f23e5ae5c65d21dbcd6647d025d20d212a36 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9797dcf3d70d553d66b13ccfaa22f23e5ae5c65d21dbcd6647d025d20d212a36 New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: ahc-tools Short Description: Reporting and matching tools for RDO-manager automatic health checks Upstream URL: https://github.com/rdo-management/ahc-tools Owners: trown divius Branches: f21 f22 epel7 InitialCC: Git done (by process-git-requests). ahc-tools-0.2.0-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ahc-tools-0.2.0-1.fc22 ahc-tools-0.2.0-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ahc-tools-0.2.0-1.fc21 ahc-tools-0.2.0-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ahc-tools-0.2.0-1.el7 ahc-tools-0.2.0-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. ahc-tools-0.2.0-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. |