Bug 1590414 (FEDORA_KATA_CONTAINERS_IMAGE)

Could you update the target Fedora release?
What kind of testing will Red Hat do when they put this in Fedora? will you attach your test results to the BZ?

(In reply to Margaret LaBrecque from comment #1)
> Could you update the target Fedora release?
> What kind of testing will Red Hat do when they put this in Fedora? will you
> attach your test results to the BZ?

Hi Margaret, so once the packages are approved, we'll add those to all Fedora releases currently supported (right now: rawhide, f28, f27) unless any of those releases are a problem for whatever reason.

Since this is for Fedora, there will be a package review process 
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process) to check for compliance with Fedora packaging policies. There won't be any official Red Hat (the company) QE happening on this if that's what you meant to ask (that happens only for RHEL and RHEL-based products).

The package review comments will be posted on the bz. If you want any additional tests performed, I'd need help from Kata upstream on that. I'm still in the process of wrapping my head around Kata, so kinda learning as I go :)

Does that answer your q's?

Spec URL: https://pagure.io/kata-rpm-reviews/blob/master/f/kata-containers-image/kata-containers-image.spec
SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/lsm5/kata/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00823047-kata-containers-image/kata-containers-image-1.3.1-1.git37d1824.fc30.src.rpm

https://pagure.io/kata-rpm-reviews/raw/master/f/kata-containers-image/kata-containers-image.spec
Spec URL: https://pagure.io/kata-rpm-reviews/raw/master/f/kata-containers-image/kata-containers-image.spec
SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/lsm5/kata/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00823047-kata-containers-image/kata-containers-image-1.3.1-1.git37d1824.fc30.src.rpm

SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/lsm5/kata/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00828680-kata-containers-image/kata-containers-image-1.4.0-1.git39e6aa4.fc30.src.rpm

SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/lsm5/kata/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00828683-kata-containers-image/kata-containers-image-1.4.0-2.git39e6aa4.fc30.src.rpm

[!]: 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.


[?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "*No copyright* Apache License (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated".
     52 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/jcvenega/1590414-kata-containers-image/licensecheck.txt

[?]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
I wonder if kata-osbuilder fits better as it is packaging the osbuilder to built the image in the host.

===== 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]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/kata-containers
     (kata-linux-container), /usr/libexec/kata-containers(kata-shim-bin,
     kata-proxy-bin, kata-runtime)
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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 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.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: 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]: 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

===== 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.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: %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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: kata-containers-image-1.4.0-2.git39e6aa4.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          kata-containers-image-1.4.0-2.git39e6aa4.fc28.src.rpm
kata-containers-image.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rootfs -> roots, roofs, root's
kata-containers-image.x86_64: E: no-binary
kata-containers-image.x86_64: W: no-documentation
kata-containers-image.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post mv
kata-containers-image.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rootfs -> roots, roofs, root's
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
kata-containers-image.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rootfs -> roots, roofs, root's
kata-containers-image.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/kata-containers/osbuilder <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
kata-containers-image.x86_64: E: no-binary
kata-containers-image.x86_64: W: no-documentation
kata-containers-image.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post mv
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.



Requires
--------
kata-containers-image (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/bash
    /bin/sh
    /usr/bin/bash
    compiler(go-compiler)
    go-srpm-macros
    qemu-img



Provides
--------
kata-containers-image:
    kata-containers-image
    kata-containers-image(x86-64)



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/kata-containers/osbuilder/archive/39e6aa4094cb1b886dcd1d12b63ae9e9c871a9d1/osbuilder-39e6aa4.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 0bf8a47d0e59f156b54bb97c83bd18633b98140af06287e452f182c6febc401c
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0bf8a47d0e59f156b54bb97c83bd18633b98140af06287e452f182c6febc401c


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1590414
Buildroot used: fedora-28-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

Spec URL: https://pagure.io/kata-rpm-reviews/raw/master/f/kata-osbuilder/kata-osbuilder.spec
SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/lsm5/kata/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00830265-kata-osbuilder/kata-osbuilder-1.4.0-4.git39e6aa4.fc30.src.rpm

Thanks for update 

[x]: Package functions as described.


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: "*No copyright* Apache License (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated".
     52 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/jcvenega/1590414-kata-containers-image/1590414-kata-
     osbuilder/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/kata-containers
     (kata-linux-container), /usr/libexec/kata-containers(kata-shim-bin,
     kata-proxy-bin, kata-runtime)
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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 3 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]: 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: 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]: 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.
[-]: %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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: kata-osbuilder-1.4.0-4.git39e6aa4.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          kata-osbuilder-1.4.0-4.git39e6aa4.fc28.src.rpm
kata-osbuilder.x86_64: E: no-binary
kata-osbuilder.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post mv
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
kata-osbuilder.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/kata-containers/osbuilder <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
kata-osbuilder.x86_64: E: no-binary
kata-osbuilder.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post mv
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.



Requires
--------
kata-osbuilder (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/bash
    /bin/sh
    /usr/bin/bash
    compiler(go-compiler)
    go-srpm-macros
    qemu-img



Provides
--------
kata-osbuilder:
    kata-osbuilder
    kata-osbuilder(x86-64)



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/kata-containers/osbuilder/archive/39e6aa4094cb1b886dcd1d12b63ae9e9c871a9d1/osbuilder-39e6aa4.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 0bf8a47d0e59f156b54bb97c83bd18633b98140af06287e452f182c6febc401c
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0bf8a47d0e59f156b54bb97c83bd18633b98140af06287e452f182c6febc401c


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1590414
Buildroot used: fedora-28-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kata-osbuilder

This landed in the repos as kata-osbuilder. Closing