Bug 1732942
| Summary: | Review Request: libmodulemd1 - Module metadata manipulation library | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <zebob.m> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | package-review, zebob.m |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | zebob.m:
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: | 2019-07-31 19:59:43 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
Stephen Gallagher
2019-07-24 19:24:39 UTC
Koji Scratch Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=36473652 It's for EPEL, right? - You're self-obsoleting the package: libmodulemd1.x86_64: W: self-obsoletion libmodulemd < 2 obsoletes libmodulemd = 1.8.15-1.el7 - You need to call %ldconfig_scriptlets on EPEL7: - ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. Note: /sbin/ldconfig not called in libmodulemd1 See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#Shared_Libraries Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. Note: /sbin/ldconfig not called in libmodulemd1 See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_shared_libraries ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 137 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/libmodulemd1/review- libmodulemd1/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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. [x]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: 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 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: [-]: 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. [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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1433600 bytes in /usr/share [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libmodulemd1-1.8.15-1.el7.x86_64.rpm python2-libmodulemd1-1.8.15-1.el7.x86_64.rpm libmodulemd1-devel-1.8.15-1.el7.x86_64.rpm libmodulemd1-debuginfo-1.8.15-1.el7.x86_64.rpm libmodulemd1-1.8.15-1.el7.src.rpm libmodulemd1.x86_64: W: self-obsoletion libmodulemd < 2 obsoletes libmodulemd = 1.8.15-1.el7 libmodulemd1.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary modulemd-validator-v1 python2-libmodulemd1.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided python2-modulemd python2-libmodulemd1.x86_64: W: no-documentation libmodulemd1-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libmodulemd -> modulated libmodulemd1-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libmodulemd -> modulated 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #2) > It's for EPEL, right? > No, this is for Fedora. I've switched upstream to provide separate tarballs and I want to stop having to meaninglessly bump the version for the deprecated 1.x API. > - You're self-obsoleting the package: > > libmodulemd1.x86_64: W: self-obsoletion libmodulemd < 2 obsoletes > libmodulemd = 1.8.15-1.el7 > Oops, I'll fix that. > - You need to call %ldconfig_scriptlets on EPEL7: > This won't be on EPEL 7. > - ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. > Note: /sbin/ldconfig not called in libmodulemd1 > See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#Shared_Libraries > Spec URL: https://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/libmodulemd1/libmodulemd1.spec SRPM URL: https://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/libmodulemd1/libmodulemd1-1.8.15-2.fc31.src.rpm then do you have an exception for the Python 2 bits? OK, I just had a look and it seems like the infrastructure components still relying on libmodulemd1 are all Python 3 now, so I'll drop those subpackages. Spec URL: https://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/libmodulemd1/libmodulemd1.spec SRPM URL: https://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/libmodulemd1/libmodulemd1-1.8.15-3.fc31.src.rpm LGTM, package approved. (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libmodulemd1 FEDORA-2019-7601bd3aaf has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-7601bd3aaf FEDORA-2019-7a9f958652 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-7a9f958652 libmodulemd1-1.8.15-3.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-2019-7a9f958652 libmodulemd1-1.8.15-3.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-2019-7601bd3aaf FEDORA-2019-7601bd3aaf has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-7601bd3aaf FEDORA-2019-7a9f958652 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-7a9f958652 libmodulemd1-1.8.15-3.fc29.1 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-2019-7601bd3aaf libmodulemd1-1.8.15-3.fc30.1 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-2019-7a9f958652 libmodulemd1-1.8.15-3.fc30.1 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. libmodulemd1-1.8.15-3.fc29.1 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |