Spec URL: https://github.com/sdake/fedora-reviews/raw/master/os-apply-config/os-apply-config.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/sdake/fedora-reviews/blob/master/os-apply-config/os-apply-config-0.1.12-1.fc20.src.rpm?raw=true Description: Configure files from cloud metadata Fedora Account System Username: sdake
It's tempting to reference OpenStack in the name (other than with just os-), although probably that would just be more confusing :/ Are those explicit Requires needed? I thought that they were added automatically when you use setuptools. The summary is not that descriptive. Could we have something like "Apply configuration from OpenStack Orchestration metadata" or "Guest configuration agent for OpenStack Orchestration"?
Zane, Packaging guidelines indicate the BuildRequires are necessary: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires I'm open to changes for the Summary and Description field. Charles any thoughts on improvements here?
BuildRequires are required, but I thought it picked up the Requires dependencies in requires.txt from setuptools automatically
I'm was certain RPM doesn't parse requirements.txt and have confirmed it with Fedora engineering. Regards -steve
===== 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/zbitter/work/2014/February/os- apply-config-review/review-os-apply-config/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. [-]: 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 20480 bytes in 2 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 %doc. [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]: 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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist [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 Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== 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. [-]: 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. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [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: os-apply-config-0.1.12-1.fc21.noarch.rpm os-apply-config-0.1.12-1.fc21.src.rpm os-apply-config.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal os-apply-config.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US openstack -> open stack, open-stack, opens tack os-apply-config.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal os-apply-config.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/os-apply-config os-apply-config.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary os-config-applier os-apply-config.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary os-apply-config os-apply-config.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal os-apply-config.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US openstack -> open stack, open-stack, opens tack os-apply-config.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint os-apply-config os-apply-config.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal os-apply-config.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US openstack -> open stack, open-stack, opens tack os-apply-config.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal os-apply-config.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/os-apply-config os-apply-config.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary os-config-applier os-apply-config.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary os-apply-config 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- os-apply-config (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/env /usr/bin/python python(abi) python-anyjson python-argparse python-setuptools Provides -------- os-apply-config: os-apply-config Source checksums ---------------- http://tarballs.openstack.org/os-apply-config/os-apply-config-0.1.12.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3062830279fc564c7eb758b4451b89b73590d1c8180374c34f2a4c1cbe7adffa CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3062830279fc564c7eb758b4451b89b73590d1c8180374c34f2a4c1cbe7adffa Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n os-apply-config -m fedora-rawhide-i386 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
Zane, Thanks for the review. I had a look at adding a %check section, but the package requires a newer version of python-testrepository then is available in F20.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: os-apply-config Short Description: Configure files from cloud metadata Owners: sdake Branches: f20 InitialCC: jslagle
InitialCC, like Owners, needs a FAS account and not an email address.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: os-apply-config Short Description: Configure files from cloud metadata Owners: sdake Branches: f20 InitialCC: slagle
Git done (by process-git-requests).
This package was approved and imported in repositories and it was later retired, but this review ticket was never closed. I'm closing it now.