Why did you still leave rpmlint unhappy?

*** Bug 1006116 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Thanks for linking to the other review request, Christopher. I meant to do so, but it must have slipped my mind.

Also, I'm not the one who submitted that package initially, and I do not require a sponsor. I am already POC on multiple packages and have commit to many more.

The single error that rpmlint reports regarding the /var/lib/waagent directory will need an exception. The agent stores vital information in that directory, and the authors of the tool have removed global read rights intentionally.

I see many other directories in /var/lib/ with those permissions, so I didn't think it would be a problem. If it is, however, I'll need to bring it up with upstream to find a solution that is acceptable by all.

Thanks again for taking a look,

--scott

I can handle this review.  There are a bunch of good review comments in the previous review bug that apply to this review as well: specifically the ones relating to the python packaging guidelines at www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python

I'll start tp work on a more thorough review.

First pass with fedora-review, there are some issues.

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

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


Issues:
=======
- Package should contain BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
- Package should require python2 or python2
- Package should use __python2 or __python3 macros
- attr and defattr aren't typically needed
- waagent.conf doensn't have a replace or noreplace with %config
- Buildroot not needed for epel 6+ and fedora
- Vendor and Packager should be removed
- /etc/logrotate.d not owned, OK for this package to own it.
- epel7 can use the systemd init, right?

===== 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.
     Both are tests, not included in distribution.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/logrotate.d
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: 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.
[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: Test run failed
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[!]: 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 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.

Python:
[-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
[-]: 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.
[!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
     %build section should contain setup.py build
     python versions and macros inconsistent

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[!]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
     Note: Found : Packager: Microsoft Corporation
     <walinuxagent> Found : Vendor: Microsoft Corporation
     See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags
[!]: Buildroot is not present
     Note: Invalid buildroot found: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-build
     See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
[-]: 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]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: 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.
[!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
     Note: %define requiring justification: %define initsys systemd, %define
     distro fedora, %define distro redhat, %define initsys sysV
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[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.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
[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: WALinuxAgent-2.0.8-6.fc21.noarch.rpm
          WALinuxAgent-2.0.8-6.fc21.src.rpm
WALinuxAgent.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/waagent.conf
WALinuxAgent.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/waagent 0700L
WALinuxAgent.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary waagent
WALinuxAgent.src:22: W: hardcoded-packager-tag Microsoft Corporation <walinuxagent>
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root@primus /]# rpmlint WALinuxAgent
WALinuxAgent.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/waagent.conf
WALinuxAgent.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/waagent 0700L
WALinuxAgent.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary waagent
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root@primus /]# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
WALinuxAgent (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    /usr/bin/env
    config(WALinuxAgent)
    grep
    iptables
    net-tools
    openssh
    openssl
    python
    python-pyasn1
    sed
    sudo
    systemd
    util-linux



Provides
--------
WALinuxAgent:
    WALinuxAgent
    config(WALinuxAgent)



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/Azure/WALinuxAgent/archive/WALinuxAgent-2.0.8.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : dd463f7dff906ff3ef5eb8152bed9a30892fa8f3e6147e3d15f7d483f4cc6096
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : dd463f7dff906ff3ef5eb8152bed9a30892fa8f3e6147e3d15f7d483f4cc6096


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1159660 -P Python
Buildroot used: fedora-21-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

Okay, I'm starting to see that re-factoring the sample spec is not going to work. At this rate, we will have modified the entire thing just to meet packaging specifications.

I made a spec from scratch that should conform.

Spec URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/WALinuxAgent2/WALinuxAgent.spec
SRPM URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/WALinuxAgent2/WALinuxAgent-2.0.11-1.fc22.src.rpm

Notes:
- %config without (noreplace) implies replace. You can't actually specify (replace) with %config. In any case, I'm pretty sure this should be (noreplace), so I changed it.
- logrotate.d should not be owned by this package, only the single file inside it.
- Do you think it is a good move to switch to systemd for epel7? You're more knowledgeable here, so I'll let you make the call and adjust the logic appropriately.

Thanks,

--scott

Yeah that original spec was a big crufty mess...  The package is simple enough that an all-new spec file is probably less work than sorting out the original.  It looks pretty good now.

As far as your notes go:
- I think noreplace was the right way to go, otherwise local changes get blown away on every package update.  The fedora-review warning was probably trying to make sure you weren't trying to do the wrong thing.
- According to [1], it's OK to own dirs from other packages in the case where the other package doesn't provide any core functionality for your package.  If you don't need logrotate, you should own the directory, otherwise you need a Requires: logrotate.
- I think systemd is the right call for epel7. It's the supported init system now, so providing native service files over sysv init files is preferable.  The only argument I can see for shipping the init script is el6->el7 upgrades, but el7 has been out long enough that it's probably not a huge issue.

As for The Big Checklist goes, everything is now fixed except for:
- The logrotate.d directory ownership
- According to [2], you need to BR python2-devel or python3-devel.

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#The_directory_is_owned_by_a_package_which_is_not_required_for_your_package_to_function
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires

Thanks, Rich.

I'll go ahead and make the package own logrotate.d. I had no idea that is how you were supposed to handle that situation. Thanks for the link!

I'm not sure why I had BR: python-devel - I'll change that for sure. Silly mistake.

As for epel7, I'll modify it to use systemd but I'd like to test it before we make final push. When I get back from vacation next week I'll give it a shot.

--scott

Okay, I believe that I have addressed all outstanding issues:

- python-devel dependency changed to python2-devel
- logrotate.d owned by WALinuxAgent
- rhel >= 7 uses systemd instead of sysV

Spec URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/WALinuxAgent2/WALinuxAgent.spec
SRPM URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/WALinuxAgent2/WALinuxAgent-2.0.11-2.fc22.src.rpm

Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8586099

I tested the package on CentOS 7 without any problems.

Thanks,

--scott

Looks good now.  This package is Approved.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: WALinuxAgent
Short Description: The Windows Azure Linux Agent
Upstream URL: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=250998
Owners: cottsay
Branches: f20 f21 el6 epel7
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

WALinuxAgent-2.0.11-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/WALinuxAgent-2.0.11-2.el6

WALinuxAgent-2.0.11-2.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/WALinuxAgent-2.0.11-2.el7

WALinuxAgent-2.0.11-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/WALinuxAgent-2.0.11-2.fc21

WALinuxAgent-2.0.11-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/WALinuxAgent-2.0.11-2.fc20

WALinuxAgent-2.0.11-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.

WALinuxAgent-2.0.11-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.

WALinuxAgent-2.0.11-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.

WALinuxAgent-2.0.11-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.

WALinuxAgent-2.0.11-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.