Spec URL: https://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-oslo-versionedobjects.spec SRPM URL: https://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-oslo-versionedobjects-0.1.1-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: Oslo versionedobjects library deals with DB schema being at different versions than the code expects, allowing services to be operated safely during upgrades. Fedora Account System Username:hguemar
This is un-official review of the package. Suggestions: [1.] Group tag is optional in Fedora and is only needed if you want this package to be built for EPEL5. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#Group_tag. You can remove Group tag from both package and sub-package. [2.] Change the URL from launchpad to pypi, URL: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/oslo.versionedobjects [3.] Use %{version} tag in Source0 Source0: https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/o/%{sname}/%{sname}-%{version}.tar.gz [4.] Move doc building steps from %install section to %build section export PYTHONPATH="$( pwd ):$PYTHONPATH" pushd doc sphinx-build -b html -d build/doctrees source build/html popd # Fix hidden-file-or-dir warnings rm -fr doc/build/html/.buildinfo [5.] Mock build is failing and giving: Extension error: Could not import extension oslosphinx (exception: No module named oslosphinx) To fix this: Add this line in %prep section: # make doc build compatible with python-oslo-sphinx RPM sed -i 's/oslosphinx/oslo.sphinx/' doc/source/conf.py [6.] in %files section, please include other files also present in the python package tarball. %doc AUTHORS CONTRIBUTING.rst README.rst PKG-INFO ChangeLog
1. good catch 2. launchpad url is valid too 3. good catch 4. good catch 5. does not fail in rawhide, you probably use an older release chroot with an older python-oslo-sphinx (we dropped these kind of patches) scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9345063 build.log: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/5064/9345064/build.log During reviews, we should focus on rawhide support unless stated otherwise (packager expresses his intent to package on released Fedora, which is not the case for openstack kilo builds) 6. good catch for AUTHORS and ChangeLog, other files are not really relevant for packaging => updated
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines - 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. Note: Cannot find LICENSE in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ===== 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/social/1206086-python-oslo-versionedobjects/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. Note: Test run failed [-]: 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 Note: Test run failed [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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. Python: [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Test run failed [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. Note: Test run failed [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. Note: Test run failed [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python Note: Test run failed [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python- oslo-versionedobjects-doc [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. [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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [!]: 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) [ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Test run failed Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.2.7 starting (python version = 3.4.2)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled yum cache Start: cleaning yum metadata Finish: cleaning yum metadata INFO: enabled ccache Mock Version: 1.2.7 INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.7 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/social/1206086-python-oslo-versionedobjects/results/python-oslo-versionedobjects-0.1.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm /home/social/1206086-python-oslo-versionedobjects/results/python-oslo-versionedobjects-doc-0.1.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. # /usr/bin/yum --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-22-x86_64/root/ --releasever 22 install /home/social/1206086-python-oslo-versionedobjects/results/python-oslo-versionedobjects-0.1.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm /home/social/1206086-python-oslo-versionedobjects/results/python-oslo-versionedobjects-doc-0.1.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-oslo-versionedobjects-0.1.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm python-oslo-versionedobjects-doc-0.1.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm python-oslo-versionedobjects-0.1.1-1.fc22.src.rpm python-oslo-versionedobjects-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python-oslo-versionedobjects-doc/html/_static/jquery.js 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/social/1206086-python-oslo-versionedobjects/srpm/python-oslo-versionedobjects.spec 2015-03-27 14:27:53.631571415 +0100 +++ /home/social/1206086-python-oslo-versionedobjects/srpm-unpacked/python-oslo-versionedobjects.spec 2015-03-27 09:51:00.000000000 +0100 @@ -80,5 +80,5 @@ %files %doc README.rst -%license LICENSE AUTHORS ChangeLog +%license LICENSE %{python2_sitelib}/oslo_versionedobjects %{python2_sitelib}/*.egg-info Requires -------- python-oslo-versionedobjects (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-babel python-fixtures python-iso8601 python-mock python-oslo-concurrency python-oslo-context python-oslo-i18n python-oslo-log python-oslo-messaging python-oslo-serialization python-oslo-utils python-setuptools python-six python-oslo-versionedobjects-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python-oslo-versionedobjects: python-oslo-versionedobjects python-oslo-versionedobjects-doc: python-oslo-versionedobjects-doc Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/o/oslo.versionedobjects/oslo.versionedobjects-0.1.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : dac8ef3ec789bd3f69f3f974e9f40282a411d804663eefd1ae39721f16a4c2da CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : dac8ef3ec789bd3f69f3f974e9f40282a411d804663eefd1ae39721f16a4c2da Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1206086 Buildroot used: fedora-22-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
mock failed because of missing python-oslo-client and python-oslo-concurrency which both just passed reviews, the issue with different SPEC/SRPM is now resolved, giving +
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-oslo-versionedobjects Short Description: OpenStack Olso common versionedobjects library Upstream URL: http://launchpad.net/oslo Owners: hguemar,apevec Branches: f22 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
social's scratch build of openstack-puppet-modules?#db4e135626252ebf0b23b8a0e6e98ce0dcf2f9e6 for git://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/openstack-puppet-modules?#db4e135626252ebf0b23b8a0e6e98ce0dcf2f9e6 and rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11426591
Since the package has been built for quite some time now, the review request bugzilla should be closed.