Bug 1714350

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- systemd_post is invoked in %post, but no systemd_preun in %preun, and
  systemd_postun in %postun is invoked for Systemd service files.
  Note: Systemd service file(s) in repmgr
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets

- There is one patch with no comment why it is used. Also, the patch used
  in the patch (/etc/repmgr/10/repmgr.conf) is probably not the best,
  as config files in Fedora are usually packaged without the version,
  and the rest of the package is also not installed in more than one version,
  so I'd suggest to change the default config file to /etc/repmgr/repmgr.conf,
  in the best case it could be set by build-time-configured variable.

- Creating the var log in %pre/%post sections looks like not really
  the best thing to do. I'd suggest to do something like this:
  %attr(0700,postgres,postgres) %dir %{logfiledir}

- Invalid buildroot found:
  %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}%{extra_version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/


===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.

- this is ok, as the unversioned file is a plugin

[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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
[-]: 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.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: 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 40960 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]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[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

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

Generic:
[!]: Buildroot is not present
     Note: Invalid buildroot found:
     %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}%{extra_version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
     See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
[!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
     Note: Could not download Source0:
     https://repmgr.org/download/repmgr-4.2.tar.bz2
     See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
     guidelines/SourceURL/
[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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in repmgr
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.

- There is one patch with no comment why it is used. Also, the patch used in the patch (/etc/repmgr/10/repmgr.conf) is probably not the best, as config files in Fedora are usually packaged without the version, and the rest of the package is also not installed in more than one version, so I'd suggest to change the default config file to /etc/repmgr/repmgr.conf, in the best case it could be set by build-time-configured variable.

[!]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.

- Creating the var log in %pre/%post sections like "if [ ! -x /var/log/repmgr ]" looks not really the best thing to do. I'd suggest to do something like this:
%attr(0700,postgres,postgres) %dir %{logfiledir}


[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
     Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[x]: 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.

- Probably not available by upstream, not a blocker

[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Files in /run, var/run and /var/lock uses tmpfiles.d when appropriate
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[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]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
     attached diff).
     See: (this test has no URL)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: repmgr-4.2-2.fc29.x86_64.rpm
          repmgr-debuginfo-4.2-2.fc29.x86_64.rpm
          repmgr-debugsource-4.2-2.fc29.x86_64.rpm
          repmgr-4.2-2.fc29.src.rpm
repmgr.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US failover -> fail over, fail-over, spillover
repmgr.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US switchover -> switch over, switch-over, switcher
repmgr.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codebase -> co debase, co-debase, code base
repmgr.x86_64: E: dir-or-file-in-var-run /var/run/repmgr
repmgr.x86_64: E: non-readable /var/run/repmgr 0
repmgr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary repmgr
repmgr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary repmgrd
repmgr.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%pre chown
repmgr.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post chown
repmgr.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US failover -> fail over, fail-over, spillover
repmgr.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US switchover -> switch over, switch-over, switcher
repmgr.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codebase -> co debase, co-debase, code base
repmgr.src:56: W: macro-in-comment %build
repmgr.src:87: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
repmgr.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://repmgr.org/download/repmgr-4.2.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 404: Not Found
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 13 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: repmgr-debuginfo-4.2-2.fc29.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
repmgr-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://repmgr.org <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
repmgr-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://repmgr.org <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
repmgr.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US failover -> fail over, fail-over, spillover
repmgr.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US switchover -> switch over, switch-over, switcher
repmgr.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codebase -> co debase, co-debase, code base
repmgr.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://repmgr.org <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
repmgr.x86_64: E: dir-or-file-in-var-run /var/run/repmgr
repmgr.x86_64: E: non-readable /var/run/repmgr 0
repmgr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary repmgr
repmgr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary repmgrd
repmgr.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%pre chown
repmgr.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post chown
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 10 warnings.



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
repmgr: /usr/lib64/pgsql/repmgr.so

Requires
--------
repmgr (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    /sbin/ldconfig
    config(repmgr)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libpq.so.5()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    librt.so.1()(64bit)
    postgresql-server
    rtld(GNU_HASH)
    systemd
    systemd-sysv

repmgr-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

repmgr-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
repmgr:
    config(repmgr)
    repmgr
    repmgr(x86-64)

repmgr-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    repmgr-debuginfo
    repmgr-debuginfo(x86-64)

repmgr-debugsource:
    repmgr-debugsource
    repmgr-debugsource(x86-64)

All the major issues should be fixed now. I have also upgraded the package to the latest stable release - 4.3.0

Spec URL: https://mcyprian.fedorapeople.org/repmgr.spec
SRPM URL: https://mcyprian.fedorapeople.org/repmgr-4.3.0-1.fc29.src.rpm
Copr repo: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mcyprian/repmgr/

LGTM

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

FEDORA-2019-754bae8f9b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-754bae8f9b

FEDORA-2019-9888c20e79 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-9888c20e79

FEDORA-2019-cdfb2cee1c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-cdfb2cee1c

repmgr-4.3.0-2.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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-2019-cdfb2cee1c

repmgr-4.3.0-2.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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-2019-03ff3fd931

repmgr-4.3.0-2.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

repmgr-4.3.0-2.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.