Spec URL: https://raw2.github.com/sdake/fedora-reviews/master/os-collect-config/os-collect-config.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/sdake/fedora-reviews/blob/master/os-collect-config/os-collect-config-0.1.11-1.fc20.src.rpm?raw=true Description: Service to collect openstack heat metadata. Fedora Account System Username: sdake
Hi, I'm doing an unoffcial review. Questions: 1) Should we list python-oslo-config as an explicit Requires? It will get pulled in by python-keystonclient, but it's also used directly by os-collect-config (in collect.py, and others). 2) There is no %check, and os-collect-config does have some tests. I attempted to add the following: %check %{__python} setup.py test Which required the following additional BuildRequires: BuildRequires: python-coverage BuildRequires: python-fixtures BuildRequires: python-hacking BuildRequires: python-subunit BuildRequires: python-sphinx BuildRequires: python-testrepository BuildRequires: python-testscenarios BuildRequires: python-testtools BuildRequires: python-anyjson BuildRequires: python-argparse BuildRequires: python-eventlet BuildRequires: python-keystoneclient BuildRequires: python-requests BuildRequires: python-iso8601 BuildRequires: python-lxml BuildRequires: python-oslo-config BuildRequires: python-six However, the build failed b/c python-testrepository in rawhide is only version 0.0.15, yet >=0.0.17 is specified in test-requirements.txt. What's the course of action here? Just forgo the %check entirely? 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jslagle/rpmbuild/1067200-os- collect-config/review-os-collect-config/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. There is a missing blank line between 2 of the older Changelog entries. Not sure if this is a review guideline or not (isn't explicitly mentioned on the Packaging:Guidelines wiki page). [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. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. See Question at top of comment [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 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. [-]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. Only tested on x86_64 [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. See question at top of comment [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-collect-config-0.1.11-1.fc20.noarch.rpm os-collect-config-0.1.11-1.fc20.src.rpm os-collect-config.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal os-collect-config.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal os-collect-config.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/os-collect-config os-collect-config.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary os-collect-config os-collect-config.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal os-collect-config.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US openstack -> open stack, open-stack, opens tack os-collect-config.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint os-collect-config os-collect-config.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal os-collect-config.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal os-collect-config.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/os-collect-config os-collect-config.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary os-collect-config 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- os-collect-config (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/python python(abi) python-argparse python-eventlet python-iso8601 python-keystoneclient python-lxml python-requests python-setuptools python-six systemd Provides -------- os-collect-config: os-collect-config Source checksums ---------------- http://tarballs.openstack.org/os-collect-config/os-collect-config-0.1.11.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c1feac4f9474cb77c2a4743c8a293b03255b56234a104d5e3dc651faf356737f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c1feac4f9474cb77c2a4743c8a293b03255b56234a104d5e3dc651faf356737f Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n os-collect-config Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64 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
Don't be afraid to put a ! in the review field of the output of the fedora-review tool. Picking out the problems is much easier that way. I have addressed the python-oslo-config dependency. This was not in the requirements.txt IIRC, so might want to submit something upstream to fix that. I have addressed the changelog formatting. If Fedora doesn't have a sufficient version of test repository to run the %check section, the %check section cannot be run. We are not allowed to download packages during the build process. Spec URL: https://raw2.github.com/sdake/fedora-reviews/master/os-collect-config/os-collect-config.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/sdake/fedora-reviews/blob/master/os-collect-config/os-collect-config-0.1.11-2.fc20.src.rpm?raw=true
Upstream requirements.txt lists python-pbr (maybe this is a BuildRequires?), python-oslo-config and python-anyjson as requirements: https://github.com/openstack/os-collect-config/blob/0.1.11/requirements.txt
Zane, Thanks for pointing out the dependency problems. Must have been confused by the other os-* tools :) Spec URL: https://raw2.github.com/sdake/fedora-reviews/master/os-collect-config/os-collect-config.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/sdake/fedora-reviews/blob/master/os-collect-config/os-collect-config-0.1.11-3.fc20.src.rpm?raw=true
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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/zbitter/work/2014/February/os- apply-config-review/review-os-collect-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. [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 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. [x]: 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. [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]: 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-collect-config-0.1.11-3.fc21.noarch.rpm os-collect-config-0.1.11-3.fc21.src.rpm os-collect-config.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal os-collect-config.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal os-collect-config.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/os-collect-config os-collect-config.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary os-collect-config os-collect-config.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal os-collect-config.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US openstack -> open stack, open-stack, opens tack os-collect-config.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint os-collect-config os-collect-config.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal os-collect-config.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal os-collect-config.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/os-collect-config os-collect-config.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary os-collect-config 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- os-collect-config (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/python python(abi) python-anyjson python-argparse python-eventlet python-iso8601 python-keystoneclient python-lxml python-oslo-config python-requests python-setuptools python-six systemd Provides -------- os-collect-config: os-collect-config Source checksums ---------------- http://tarballs.openstack.org/os-collect-config/os-collect-config-0.1.11.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c1feac4f9474cb77c2a4743c8a293b03255b56234a104d5e3dc651faf356737f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c1feac4f9474cb77c2a4743c8a293b03255b56234a104d5e3dc651faf356737f
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: os-collect-config Short Description: Collect and cache metadta running hooks on changes 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.