Bug 1476438
| Summary: | Review Request: clustersos - collect multiple sosreports simultaneously | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Jake Hunsaker <jhunsaker> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Richard W.M. Jones <rjones> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | ishcherb, jhunsaker, package-review, rjones, zebob.m |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | rjones:
fedora-review+
|
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2017-08-24 03:51:11 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
Jake Hunsaker
2017-07-29 03:59:09 UTC
Hello, A few points: - since you are the developer, a LICENSE file would be nice ofr it to be included in the package. - Fedora 25 introduced the macro pythonXdist, you can therefore require paramiko with: python2dist(paramiko) See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Requires_and_BuildRequires_with_standardized_names - You define a sitelib macro but it's not necessary as there is already a %{python2_sitelib} macro available. - The name of the bin is clustersosreport but the name used in the man page makes it seems the command is clustersos Otherwise the rest is fine. 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. [-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/clustersos/review- clustersos/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. [x]: 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]: 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]: 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]: 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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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. [-]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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: clustersos-1.1.1-1.fc27.noarch.rpm clustersos-1.1.1-1.fc27.src.rpm clustersos.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sosreports -> misreports, reexports, presorts clustersos.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sosreports -> misreports, reexports, presorts clustersos.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sosreport -> misreport, presort clustersos.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sosreports -> misreports, reexports, presorts clustersos.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sosreports -> misreports, reexports, presorts clustersos.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sosreport -> misreport, presort 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1) > Hello, > > A few points: > - since you are the developer, a LICENSE file would be nice ofr it to be > included in the package. Done. > - Fedora 25 introduced the macro pythonXdist, you can therefore require > paramiko with: python2dist(paramiko) See > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > Python#Requires_and_BuildRequires_with_standardized_names Cool, didn't know that. Updated. > - You define a sitelib macro but it's not necessary as there is already a > %{python2_sitelib} macro available. Updated. > - The name of the bin is clustersosreport but the name used in the man page > makes it seems the command is clustersos Looks like somehow the updated man page never got committed when I changed the binary from clustersos to clustersosreport. Thanks for pointing that out. Updated. Updated the download locations Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/jhunsake/clustersos/clustersos.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/jhunsake/clustersos/clustersos-1.1.1-1.fc25.src.rpm Sanity check koji build still passes: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20904114 This looks fine to me. Now you need someone to officially approve it. I forgot to mention in c0, I will need a sponsor as this is my first package. I have sponsored Jake into the packager group. I noticed a missing dep on python-six, so added that and updated the links. Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/jhunsake/clustersos/clustersos.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/jhunsake/clustersos/clustersos-1.1.1-1.fc25.src.rpm koji build still passes: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21018576 Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /var/tmp/1476438-clustersos/diff.txt See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL Can you check this? ===== 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: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/1476438-clustersos/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 [-]: 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. I think so, as it's a binary it doesn't need to be called python-<something> [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. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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]: 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]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: 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). [?]: 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. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Oops, looks like I overlooked updating that. Should be all good now. For reference, updated the download locations to be the actually correct ones SRPM: http://people.redhat.com/jhunsake/clustersos/clustersos-1.1.1-1.fc25.src.rpm SPEC: http://people.redhat.com/jhunsake/clustersos/clustersos.spec Alright this seems to have fixed everything. -------------------------------------- This package is APPROVED by rjones -------------------------------------- To the reporter, please follow this one (I think?) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Add_Package_to_Source_Code_Management_.28SCM.29_system_and_Set_Owner clustersos-1.1.1-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-38dd117277 clustersos-1.1.1-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-38dd117277 clustersos-1.1.1-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. This software supports Python 3, however no Python 3 package is available for Fedora. According to the Python packaging guidelines [0], software must be packaged for Python 3 if upstream supports it. The guidelines give detailed information on how to do this, and even provide an example spec file [1]. Since users aren't expected to import this tool from Python code, you can just switch to /usr/bin/python3. Alternatively, if you want or need to keep a Python 2 version, the current best practice is to provide subpackages -- this is called "Common SRPM" in the guidelines. If you need more instructions, a guide for porting Python-based RPMs is available at [2]. If anything is unclear, or if you need any kind of assistance with the porting, you can ask on IRC (#fedora-python on Freenode), or reply here. We'll be happy to help! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_common_spec_file [2] http://python-rpm-porting.readthedocs.io/ |