Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~bnemec/os-net-config.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~bnemec/os-net-config-0.1.1-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: A tool for configuring host networking using a well-defined API. This originated as a way to configure the networking on OpenStack hosts, but is intended to be useful in more general ways as well. Fedora Account System Username: bnemec
Hi! IIRC we should remove bundled *.egg-info directory after doing %setup also, why: Requires(post): systemd Requires(preun): systemd Requires(postun): systemd this package does not seem to contain service files also looks like there some docs in 'doc' directory which you neither build not bundle.
Can you fix the spacing in the spec file as well? Looks like there might be a mix of tabs and spaces. Please remove the first changelog entry from dprince. I'm not sure what the XXX version is supposed to represent. Is that a Delorean thing? In addition, please address Dmitry's points as well. 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", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jslagle/code/fedora-packages/1177019-os-net-config/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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-net-config-0.1.1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm os-net-config-0.1.1-1.fc20.src.rpm os-net-config.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/os-net-config os-net-config.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary os-net-config 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root@teletran-1 /]# rpmlint os-net-config os-net-config.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/os-net-config os-net-config.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary os-net-config 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. ]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root@teletran-1 /]# echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- os-net-config (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python PyYAML python(abi) python-anyjson python-argparse python-babel python-eventlet python-iso8601 python-netaddr python-oslo-config python-setuptools python-six systemd Provides -------- os-net-config: os-net-config Source checksums ---------------- http://tarballs.openstack.org/os-net-config/os-net-config-0.1.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bcc1e2b7a295e304ea0ab4482e9f35c73aa5680d56bf2725e70075d30713256e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bcc1e2b7a295e304ea0ab4482e9f35c73aa5680d56bf2725e70075d30713256e Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1177019 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
Thanks for the reviews guys. https://fedorapeople.org/~bnemec/os-net-config.spec https://fedorapeople.org/~bnemec/os-net-config-0.1.1-2.fc21.src.rpm -Removed unnecessary systemd requires -Fixed tab/spaces mismatch -Build and include docs in the package -Removed the delorean changelog entry I did not remove the egg-info files because none of our other OpenStack packages seem to be doing that and we appear to be regenerating them at build time anyway. Also, I think the prohibition around egg files is for egg packages, whereas we've just got egg metadata.
I don't remember where it comes from, but I was told to remove egg-info from ironic-discoverd package, so I assumed it holds here as well...
I meant to include this link in my previous comment: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Eggs#Upstream_Egg_Packages In particular: "An egg package (which is different from egg metadata) contains compiled bytecode and may, if it contains a C extension, contain compiled binary extensions as well." If you look at the egg-info files in our projects, there is no compiled bytecode or C extensions. It's just the metadata on stuff like requirements and package details, which shouldn't be an issue (and are getting regenerated by python setup.py build anyway). In the next section they actually recommend including egg-info files, especially if the upstream project generates them.
The package build is failing for me now: + /usr/bin/python setup.py build_sphinx usage: setup.py [global_opts] cmd1 [cmd1_opts] [cmd2 [cmd2_opts] ...] or: setup.py --help [cmd1 cmd2 ...] or: setup.py --help-commands or: setup.py cmd --help error: invalid command 'build_sphinx' error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.XhWdaf (%build) Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.XhWdaf (%build) RPM build errors: Child return code was: 1
https://fedorapeople.org/~bnemec/os-net-config.spec https://fedorapeople.org/~bnemec/os-net-config-0.1.1-2.fc21.src.rpm Reposting the links as the first lines of the comment in case that's confusing fedora-review for James. I haven't been able to reproduce the build failure on a clean f21 system, so I think one of the files may not have been updated properly.
The problem I'm having is b/c the spec file built into the srpm has not been updated, so it's missing the BuildRequires on the sphinx packages. Can you update that?
https://fedorapeople.org/~bnemec/os-net-config.spec https://fedorapeople.org/~bnemec/os-net-config-0.1.1-3.fc21.src.rpm Bah, sorry about that. I made sure I can rebuild just from the srpm this time, so the two above should work now.
Thanks, lgtm. Approved. 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: [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", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jslagle/code/fedora-packages/1177019-os-net-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. [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. [x]: 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 296960 bytes in 41 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: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags [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. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [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. [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-net-config-0.1.1-3.fc21.noarch.rpm os-net-config-0.1.1-3.fc21.src.rpm os-net-config.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/os-net-config/html/.buildinfo os-net-config.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/os-net-config os-net-config.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/os-net-config/html/_static/jquery.js os-net-config.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary os-net-config 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root@teletran-1 /]# rpmlint os-net-config os-net-config.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/os-net-config/html/.buildinfo os-net-config.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/os-net-config os-net-config.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/os-net-config/html/_static/jquery.js os-net-config.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary os-net-config 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. ]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root@teletran-1 /]# echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- os-net-config (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python PyYAML python(abi) python-anyjson python-argparse python-babel python-eventlet python-iso8601 python-netaddr python-oslo-config python-setuptools python-six Provides -------- os-net-config: os-net-config Source checksums ---------------- http://tarballs.openstack.org/os-net-config/os-net-config-0.1.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bcc1e2b7a295e304ea0ab4482e9f35c73aa5680d56bf2725e70075d30713256e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bcc1e2b7a295e304ea0ab4482e9f35c73aa5680d56bf2725e70075d30713256e Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1177019 -m fedora-21-x86_64 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
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: os-net-config Short Description: Host network configuration tool Upstream URL: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/os-net-config Owners: bnemec slagle Branches: f20 f21 epel7 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
builds done.