Bug 1925323

`fedora-review -b 1925323 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64`


This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
  a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
  listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
  case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines
  in what you paste.
- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
  ones are mandatory, though)
- Remove this text



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

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



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

Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[ ]: 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 2.0", "Unknown or generated",
     "Apache License 2.0". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output
     of licensecheck in /home/ericedens/git/fedora-packages/google-compute-
     engine/1925323-google-compute-engine/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/dhcp/dhclient.d,
     /etc/dhcp
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
     Note: No (noreplace) in %config /etc/dracut.conf.d/* %config
     /etc/modprobe.d/*
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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 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]: 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:
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: %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.

===== 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: google-compute-engine-20201207.00-1.fc35.noarch.rpm
          google-compute-engine-20201207.00-1.fc35.src.rpm
google-compute-engine.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US init -> unit, int, nit
google-compute-engine.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 20201207.00 ['20201207.00-1.fc35', '20201207.00-1']
google-compute-engine.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
google-compute-engine.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/dracut.conf.d/gce.conf
google-compute-engine.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/modprobe.d/gce-blacklist.conf
google-compute-engine.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary google_optimize_local_ssd
google-compute-engine.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary google_set_hostname
google-compute-engine.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary google_set_multiqueue
google-compute-engine.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US init -> unit, int, nit
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
google-compute-engine.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US init -> unit, int, nit
google-compute-engine.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 20201207.00 ['20201207.00-1.fc35', '20201207.00-1']
google-compute-engine.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
google-compute-engine.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/dracut.conf.d/gce.conf
google-compute-engine.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/modprobe.d/gce-blacklist.conf
google-compute-engine.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary google_optimize_local_ssd
google-compute-engine.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary google_set_hostname
google-compute-engine.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary google_set_multiqueue
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/guest-configs/archive/20201207.00.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : b37df2e679e2e2fe5f113ab0f82c09ae4d7f4cb4a8dc0e5b47b01f32ff0726d0
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b37df2e679e2e2fe5f113ab0f82c09ae4d7f4cb4a8dc0e5b47b01f32ff0726d0


Requires
--------
google-compute-engine (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/bash
    config(google-compute-engine)
    dracut
    google-compute-engine-oslogin
    google-guest-agent
    nvme-cli
    rsyslog



Provides
--------
google-compute-engine:
    config(google-compute-engine)
    google-compute-engine



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1925323 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: R, Perl, C/C++, Ocaml, Java, PHP, fonts, Haskell, SugarActivity, Python
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

> # Omit 'noreplace' since the values in these values are required for a system to run
> # correctly on Google Compute Engine.
> %config /etc/dracut.conf.d/*
> %config /etc/modprobe.d/*

If these aren't actually intended to be user-modifiable, you should probably install these into their /usr/lib counterparts:

%{_prefix}/lib/dracut/dracut.conf.d
%{_prefix}/lib/modprobe.d

If possible, it'd be nice to stay consistent with upstream. I did some research, and these two reference (seem to) support using `/etc`:

 - "The /etc/ directory is reserved for configuration files that are local to the machine" on https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/14/html/Storage_Administration_Guide/s1-filesystem-fhs.html
 - "Don’t use %config or %config(noreplace) under /usr. /usr is deemed to not contain configuration files in Fedora" on https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/

(In reply to ericedens from comment #3)
> If possible, it'd be nice to stay consistent with upstream. I did some
> research, and these two reference (seem to) support using `/etc`:
> 
>  - "The /etc/ directory is reserved for configuration files that are local
> to the machine" on
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/14/html/
> Storage_Administration_Guide/s1-filesystem-fhs.html
>  - "Don’t use %config or %config(noreplace) under /usr. /usr is deemed to
> not contain configuration files in Fedora" on
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/

The first guide predates the changes to how configuration works, and the second guide is still correct. You would not mark this as a config file in /usr. If you're going to make user configuration get effectively blown away on upgrade, it's better to actually install it as a static regular file in /usr rather than what you're doing in /etc.

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ericedens/gcp-guest-packages/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02112585-google-compute-engine/google-compute-engine.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ericedens/gcp-guest-packages/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02112585-google-compute-engine/google-compute-engine-20201207.00-1.fc35.src.rpm

OK, updated to add `noreplace`, but leave config files in `/etc`. I like this approach since if someone decides to modify one of these files and finds that it's working, then their changes won't get destroyed on update.

(In reply to ericedens from comment #6)
> OK, updated to add `noreplace`, but leave config files in `/etc`. I like
> this approach since if someone decides to modify one of these files and
> finds that it's working, then their changes won't get destroyed on update.

The same thing would have happened if the files are installed in /usr and they make their own version in /etc, with the advantage that it's trivial to reset the settings back to what the package shipped.

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ericedens/gcp-guest-packages/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02127911-google-compute-engine/google-compute-engine.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ericedens/gcp-guest-packages/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02127911-google-compute-engine/google-compute-engine-20201207.00-2.fc35.src.rpm

Updated so that dracut and modprobe configs are under /usr/lib

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

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



===== 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 2.0", "Unknown or generated",
     "Apache License 2.0". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output
     of licensecheck in /home/ngompa/1925323-google-compute-
     engine/licensecheck.txt
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/dhcp,
     /etc/dhcp/dhclient.d
[?]: 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.
[!]: 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]: 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 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:
[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]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: 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]: 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: google-compute-engine-20201207.00-2.fc35.noarch.rpm
          google-compute-engine-20201207.00-2.fc35.src.rpm
google-compute-engine.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US init -> unit, int, nit
google-compute-engine.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 20201207.00 ['20201207.00-2.fc35', '20201207.00-2']
google-compute-engine.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
google-compute-engine.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary google_optimize_local_ssd
google-compute-engine.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary google_set_hostname
google-compute-engine.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary google_set_multiqueue
google-compute-engine.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US init -> unit, int, nit
google-compute-engine.src:56: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/dracut/dracut.conf.d/*.conf
google-compute-engine.src:57: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/modprobe.d/*.conf
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 7 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
google-compute-engine.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US init -> unit, int, nit
google-compute-engine.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 20201207.00 ['20201207.00-2.fc35', '20201207.00-2']
google-compute-engine.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
google-compute-engine.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary google_optimize_local_ssd
google-compute-engine.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary google_set_hostname
google-compute-engine.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary google_set_multiqueue
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/guest-configs/archive/20201207.00.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : b37df2e679e2e2fe5f113ab0f82c09ae4d7f4cb4a8dc0e5b47b01f32ff0726d0
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b37df2e679e2e2fe5f113ab0f82c09ae4d7f4cb4a8dc0e5b47b01f32ff0726d0


Requires
--------
google-compute-engine (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/bash
    config(google-compute-engine)
    dracut
    google-compute-engine-oslogin
    google-guest-agent
    nvme-cli
    rsyslog



Provides
--------
google-compute-engine:
    config(google-compute-engine)
    google-compute-engine



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1925323 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Haskell, SugarActivity, Python, Java, C/C++, R, PHP, Ocaml, fonts, Perl
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

> [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
>     Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/dhcp,
>     /etc/dhcp/dhclient.d

You need "Requires: dhcp-client" in the package.

> google-compute-engine.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 20201207.00 ['20201207.00-2.fc35', '20201207.00-2']

Changelog needs fixing

> google-compute-engine

This package name should be changed to "google-compute-engine-guest-configs", since this is not "google-compute-engine", but the guest configuration code for running in GCE.

> [?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.

This was erroneous, this is actually fine.

Just a note here that I think NetworkManager utilizes its own internal DHCP client implementation. I doubt the dhclient configuration that is getting dropped down by this RPM is even getting used.

Here's an f34 vagrant box I just booted:

```
Apr 09 15:49:37 fedora NetworkManager[523]: <info>  [1617983377.5816] dhcp-init: Using DHCP client 'internal'
```

Regarding the package name, I'd prefer to keep `google-compute-engine`, since this is what we use in CentOS and RHEL. https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/images/install-guest-environment#centosrhel

Spec updates in this version:
1. Added `You need "Requires: dhcp-client`; verified that `/etc/dhcp/dhclient.d/google_hostname.sh` is called via `/usr/lib/NetworkManager/dispatcher.d/11-dhclient`.
2. Updated version number in change log to avoid "incoherent-version-in-changelog"

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ericedens/gcp-guest-packages/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02137866-google-compute-engine/google-compute-engine.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ericedens/gcp-guest-packages/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02137866-google-compute-engine/google-compute-engine-20201207.00-4.fc35.src.rpm

Fixed lint error about using hardcoded path to `/usr`

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ericedens/gcp-guest-packages/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02137872-google-compute-engine/google-compute-engine.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ericedens/gcp-guest-packages/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02137872-google-compute-engine/google-compute-engine-20201207.00-5.fc35.src.rpm

(In reply to ericedens from comment #14)
> Regarding the package name, I'd prefer to keep `google-compute-engine`,
> since this is what we use in CentOS and RHEL.
> https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/images/install-guest-
> environment#centosrhel
> 

Wouldn't it make sense to consider renaming *that* package then? If the contents are the same, the name of the package is definitely wrong.

To me, it sounds odd to call it "google-compute-engine" since this package doesn't make a Fedora Linux machine become GCE. :)

While I think the name isn't perfect it's definitely not imperfect and historical precedence for keeping it as `google-compute-engine` makes sense to me. The question that comes up is:  "would another piece of software exist that would more appropriately have the name `google-compute-engine`?" I don't think so since the code behind the cloud platform is proprietary.

I would really prefer to see it renamed before import. We could also have "Provides: google-compute-engine = %{version}-%{release}" if we want the other name to work too.

To note, the previous incarnation of this was named "google-compute-engine-tools" which had the virtual name of "google-compute-engine" for compatibility with upstream: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/google-compute-engine-tools/blob/rawhide/f/google-compute-engine-tools.spec#_38-39

I personally think it makes sense for this package to be called "google-compute-engine-guest-configs" and have a Provides statement for the other name.

Thanks for the analysis and insight. I'll post another version with the following:

 1. Name package google-compute-engine-guest-configs
 2. Include `Provides: %{base_name} = %{version}-%{release}`

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ericedens/gcp-guest-packages/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02144147-google-compute-engine-guest-configs/google-compute-engine-guest-configs.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ericedens/gcp-guest-packages/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02144147-google-compute-engine-guest-configs/google-compute-engine-guest-configs-20201207.00-6.fc35.src.rpm

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

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



===== 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 2.0", "Unknown or generated",
     "Apache License 2.0". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output
     of licensecheck in /home/ngompa/1925323-google-compute-engine-guest-
     configs/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.
[x]: 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]: 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:
[-]: 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.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: 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.
[!]: 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: google-compute-engine-guest-configs-20201207.00-6.fc35.noarch.rpm
          google-compute-engine-guest-configs-20201207.00-6.fc35.src.rpm
google-compute-engine-guest-configs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US init -> unit, int, nit
google-compute-engine-guest-configs.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
google-compute-engine-guest-configs.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary google_optimize_local_ssd
google-compute-engine-guest-configs.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary google_set_hostname
google-compute-engine-guest-configs.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary google_set_multiqueue
google-compute-engine-guest-configs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US init -> unit, int, nit
google-compute-engine-guest-configs.src:57: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/dracut/dracut.conf.d/*.conf
google-compute-engine-guest-configs.src:58: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/modprobe.d/*.conf
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
google-compute-engine-guest-configs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US init -> unit, int, nit
google-compute-engine-guest-configs.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
google-compute-engine-guest-configs.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary google_optimize_local_ssd
google-compute-engine-guest-configs.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary google_set_hostname
google-compute-engine-guest-configs.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary google_set_multiqueue
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/guest-configs/archive/20201207.00.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : b37df2e679e2e2fe5f113ab0f82c09ae4d7f4cb4a8dc0e5b47b01f32ff0726d0
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b37df2e679e2e2fe5f113ab0f82c09ae4d7f4cb4a8dc0e5b47b01f32ff0726d0


Requires
--------
google-compute-engine-guest-configs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/bash
    config(google-compute-engine-guest-configs)
    dhcp-client
    dracut
    google-compute-engine-oslogin
    google-guest-agent
    nvme-cli
    rsyslog



Provides
--------
google-compute-engine-guest-configs:
    config(google-compute-engine-guest-configs)
    google-compute-engine
    google-compute-engine-guest-configs



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1925323 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Python, Ocaml, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, PHP, R, Perl, C/C++, Java
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

A couple of easy things to take care of:

> [!]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
>      Provides are present.

We need to have replacement of the old google-compute-engine-tools package in here:

Obsoletes: google-compute-engine-tools < 2.8.12-11
Provides: google-compute-engine-tools = 2.8.12-11

> [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
>      files.

Please add '-p' option to your calls to 'cp' and 'install' so that timestamps are preserved.

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ericedens/gcp-guest-packages/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02145358-google-compute-engine-guest-configs/google-compute-engine-guest-configs.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ericedens/gcp-guest-packages/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02145358-google-compute-engine-guest-configs/google-compute-engine-guest-configs-20201207.00-7.fc35.src.rpm

Thanks Neal!

- Added Obsoletes & Provides for google-compute-engine-tools
- Added `-p` for cp and install commands.

Looks good to me now!

PACKAGE APPROVED.

Repo request: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/33746

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/google-compute-engine-guest-configs

Package is available in repositories, closing.