Bug 2221312

This package built on koji:  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=103065317

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6150573
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2221312-efs-utils/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06150573-efs-utils/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

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.
[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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT
     License". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/efs-utils/2221312-
     efs-utils/licensecheck.txt
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /etc/amazon/efs, /etc/amazon
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/amazon/efs, /etc/amazon
[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.
[ ]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 2 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 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]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and
     systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files.
     Note: Systemd service file(s) in efs-utils
[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.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[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:
[!]: 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 all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: efs-utils-1.35.0-1.fc38.noarch.rpm
          efs-utils-1.35.0-1.fc38.src.rpm
==================================================== rpmlint session starts ====================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpijhnf_gp')]
checks: 31, packages: 2

efs-utils.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
efs-utils.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/amazon/efs/efs-utils.crt
efs-utils.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary amazon-efs-mount-watchdog
efs-utils.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mount.efs
efs-utils.noarch: W: log-files-without-logrotate ['/var/log/amazon']
===================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 2.6 s =====================




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
/bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8)
/bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8)
/bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8)
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 1

efs-utils.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
efs-utils.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/amazon/efs/efs-utils.crt
efs-utils.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary amazon-efs-mount-watchdog
efs-utils.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mount.efs
efs-utils.noarch: W: log-files-without-logrotate ['/var/log/amazon']
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/aws/efs-utils/archive/v1.35.0/efs-utils-1.35.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : e9c23b046e3ebf24d7679997e869e85ee5723ffcbd94d5337a0fd6e5e4808f95
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e9c23b046e3ebf24d7679997e869e85ee5723ffcbd94d5337a0fd6e5e4808f95


Requires
--------
efs-utils (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    /usr/bin/python3
    config(efs-utils)
    nfs-utils
    openssl
    python3dist(botocore)
    stunnel
    util-linux
    which



Provides
--------
efs-utils:
    config(efs-utils)
    efs-utils



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/efs-utils/2221312-efs-utils/srpm/efs-utils.spec       2023-07-08 11:26:50.033201525 +0300
+++ /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/efs-utils/2221312-efs-utils/srpm-unpacked/efs-utils.spec 2023-07-07 03:00:00.000000000 +0300
@@ -76,5 +76,4 @@
 touch pytest.ini
 
-# Ignore some tests that require networking and get stuck forever.
 PYTHONPATH=$(pwd)/src %pytest \
     --ignore test/mount_efs_test/test_bootstrap_tls.py \


Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2221312 -m fedora-38-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: R, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Ruby, C/C++, Java, Perl, PHP, Haskell, fonts, Python
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comments:
a) Warnings when running tests, see build log
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2221312-efs-utils/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06150573-efs-utils/builder-live.log.gz
b) For directory ownership add
%dir %{_sysconfdir}/amazon
%dir %{_sysconfdir}/amazon/efs
c) Should there be a dependency on logrotate

Thanks, Benson. I skipped some of the tests that couldn't open network connections to avoid those warnings. I also added the directory ownership changes. As for logging, it looks like the scripts rotate their own logs with a maximum size and number of log files.

I'll get a new build up in a moment.

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mhayden/efs-utils/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06191195-efs-utils/efs-utils.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mhayden/efs-utils/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06191195-efs-utils/efs-utils-1.35.0-1.fc39.src.rpm

Created attachment 1976740 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6150573 to 6191219

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6191219
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2221312-efs-utils/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06191219-efs-utils/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Thanks. Approved.

Thanks, Benson! 👏

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/efs-utils

FEDORA-2023-82bc1b598c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-82bc1b598c

FEDORA-2023-82bc1b598c has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.