Hi Fabien,

1/ running fedora-review yeild this error: ERROR: 'mock build failed'

And in the log:
+ /usr/bin/python setup.py build
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "setup.py", line 18, in <module>
    import setuptools
ImportError: No module named setuptools


I suspect you need to add:
BuildRequires:  python-setuptools


2/ Also rpmlint raised a warning about W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 6, tab: line 5), you better use space everywhere and remove all tabulations.

3/ Finally, E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog

Cheers!

Hi Tristan,

Thanks you for the review. You are right python-setuptools was missing so I added it in BuildRequires. Also I removed all tabulations so fedora-review no longer reports that problem. I fixed the date too.

The package does not install correctly "ERROR: 'mock build failed'" due to the missing python-statsd. I thought it was already included in fedora but apparently not yet.

Cheers,
Fabien Boucher

Hello,

The packaging for Zuul has been updated since a tagged version is available upstream. I have tested and validated the package manually by first installing python-APScheduler (currently waiting for reviews) and then Zuul.
I don't include a koji build log as python-APScheduler is still missing from the repos.

You can find SRPMS and SPECS here:
- https://fbo.fedorapeople.org/zuul-spec/zuul-2.1.0-1.fc22.src.rpm
- https://fbo.fedorapeople.org/zuul-spec/zuul.spec

Also (python-apscheduler: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218410)

Cheers,
Fabien

Removed the need sponso block, since Fabien is already in the packager group, and adding a block on python-aspcheduler.

A few notes:

- The service file could be sent upstream, since systemd is the same on every supported platform ( so it avoid work duplication with debian, suse, etc )

- ideally, I like when the patch have a note to say "sent upstream" + location of the submission or "not sent upstream"  reason. Not blocking, but a best practice.

Hi Michael,

Thanks for the review. I've submitted the patch upstream and added a comment in the spec file. For systemd service files I'll try.

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

I'll be uploading a new spec shortly.  Also have python-APScheduler landed into rawhide too.

Package request has been denied with the reason: The review request does not have fedora-review+, and does not seem fully reviewed.

So, I've made a few changes to the spec that Fabien has started. Specifically, I removed a few things because they are currently in flux upstream (am a zuul developer).

I've also removed the systemd files for the moment. Again, currently renaming some services upstream.

You can find SRPMS and SPECS here:
- https://pabelanger.fedorapeople.org/zuul/zuul.spec
- https://pabelanger.fedorapeople.org/zuul/zuul-2.1.0-1.fc27.src.rpm

Obviously, systemd will be added back into the spec, hopefully that's not enough to stop the creation of the package request.  I would be nice to get this into fedora so we can collaborate more.

Taking the review, Paul and Fabien will be comaintaining this package.

Few points:
* please use %license
* please use %{python2_sitelib}
* please fix Source0 URL, this one is not working anymore s/python.org/io/ should do the trick
* Group tag is not needed anymore
* does not install, drop Requires: python-argparse

Hi,

I suggest to re-consider the packaging by looking at the
work that have been done by Tristan there: https://softwarefactory-project.io/r/gitweb?p=software-factory/zuul-distgit.git;a=blob;f=zuul.spec;hb=HEAD

This is a packaging known to work with centos7 + minor
integration stuff like additional patches (not yet merged upstream
patches) for SF.

Services are splitted server, merger, launcher.

That said I'm not against keeping it simple first and improve
it once approved.

@Fabien, ya I planned to resync once we created a git remove on fedoraproject.org. Will make things a little easier to collaborate.

Haïkel: Updates per comments.

https://pabelanger.fedorapeople.org/zuul/zuul.spec
https://pabelanger.fedorapeople.org/zuul/zuul-2.1.0-1.fc25.src.rpm

> @Fabien, ya I planned to resync once we created a git remove on fedoraproject.org.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but if you mean the repo like http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/zuul.git, that will be created only after the package is approved. If you need an unofficial repo to coordinate work, and you want it to be on fedora infrastructure, you can create one yourself on https://pagure.io.

> This is a program that is used to gate the source code repository of a project
so that changes are only merged if they pass tests. The main component is
the scheduler. It receives events related to proposed changes, triggers tests
based on those events, and reports back. This software interacts between Gerrit
and Jenkins by listening the Gerrit events stream and triggering jobs.

This is a program that gates changes in a source code repository of a project, so that changes are only merged if tests pass. The main component is
the scheduler. It receives events related to proposed changes, triggers tests
based on those events, and reports back. This software interacts with Gerrit
and Jenkins by listening to the Gerrit event stream and triggering jobs.

(grammar)

Looks good otherwise.

Thanks Paul for fixing the packages, please submit a pkgdb request and add Fabien as comaintainer.
Package is hereby approved into Fedora packages collection.


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)", "*No copyright* Apache", "Unknown or
     generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 104 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/haikel/1220451-zuul/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 10240 bytes in 1 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 %license.
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[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 does not use a name that already exists.
[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]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
     Note: Patch was written by a core contributor of the project

[-]: 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]: 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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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: zuul-2.1.0-1.fc27.noarch.rpm
          zuul-2.1.0-1.fc27.src.rpm
zuul.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/zuul/cmd/client.py /usr/bin/env python
zuul.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/zuul/cmd/client.py 644 /usr/bin/env python
zuul.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/zuul/cmd/server.py /usr/bin/env python
zuul.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/zuul/cmd/server.py 644 /usr/bin/env python
zuul.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/zuul/cmd/merger.py /usr/bin/env python
zuul.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/zuul/cmd/merger.py 644 /usr/bin/env python
zuul.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/zuul/cmd/cloner.py /usr/bin/env python
zuul.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/zuul/cmd/cloner.py 644 /usr/bin/env python
zuul.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/zuul/cmd/__init__.py /usr/bin/env python
zuul.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/zuul/cmd/__init__.py 644 /usr/bin/env python
zuul.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zuul-merger
zuul.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zuul
zuul.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zuul-cloner
zuul.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zuul-server
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 10 errors, 4 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
zuul.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/zuul/cmd/__init__.py /usr/bin/env python
zuul.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/zuul/cmd/__init__.py 644 /usr/bin/env python
zuul.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/zuul/cmd/client.py /usr/bin/env python
zuul.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/zuul/cmd/client.py 644 /usr/bin/env python
zuul.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/zuul/cmd/cloner.py /usr/bin/env python
zuul.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/zuul/cmd/cloner.py 644 /usr/bin/env python
zuul.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/zuul/cmd/merger.py /usr/bin/env python
zuul.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/zuul/cmd/merger.py 644 /usr/bin/env python
zuul.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/zuul/cmd/server.py /usr/bin/env python
zuul.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/zuul/cmd/server.py 644 /usr/bin/env python
zuul.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zuul
zuul.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zuul-cloner
zuul.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zuul-merger
zuul.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zuul-server
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 10 errors, 4 warnings.



Requires
--------
zuul (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    /usr/bin/python2
    GitPython
    PyYAML
    python(abi)
    python-APScheduler
    python-daemon
    python-extras
    python-gear
    python-paramiko
    python-paste
    python-prettytable
    python-six
    python-statsd
    python-voluptuous
    python-webob



Provides
--------
zuul:
    python2.7dist(zuul)
    python2dist(zuul)
    zuul



Source checksums
----------------
http://tarballs.openstack.org/zuul/zuul-2.1.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 207882a38d8e27b85333c65250528ebb5bee60e9f2755c34702e01615537dc9d
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 207882a38d8e27b85333c65250528ebb5bee60e9f2755c34702e01615537dc9d


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1220451 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/zuul

With the next 3.0.0 version approaching release, it seems like we should drop that spec and start with the new version directly. To that effect, I ported the zuulv3 package from software-factory to fedora:

Spec URL:  https://fedorapeople.org/~tdecacqu/pkgs/zuul.spec
SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~tdecacqu/pkgs/zuul-3.0.0-0.1.2017.12.27.420e8a4.src.rpm

Here are some missing bits:
* python-zuul-sphinx: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529643
* python-sphinx-autodoc-typehints: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529644
* python3-gear: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529648

Then zuul probably needs to be fixed upstream for:
* python3-jenkins-job-builder-2.0.0.0:
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/bin/zuul-migrate", line 6, in <module>
    from zuul.cmd.migrate import main
  File "/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/zuul/cmd/migrate.py", line 445, in <module>
    class JJB(jenkins_jobs.builder.Builder):
AttributeError: module 'jenkins_jobs.builder' has no attribute 'Builder'

* ansible-python3-2.4.2.0-1.fc27 (ansible<2.4 in requirements.txt)

any progress here?

The software factory project still maintains a zuul.spec for CentOS here: https://softwarefactory-project.io/cgit/scl/zuul-distgit/ .
I think most of the requirements are already present in Fedora, however:

* The webui is bundled as it requires React and Patternfly to build from source.
* The executor now requires bundled Ansible versions. Perhaps we can patch the unsupported version and make it use a single Ansible version provided by Fedora.

We (the sofware factory project) will soon port it to CentOS 8, though above couple of issues may prevent inclusion in Fedora.

Hi,

I'm in the process to restore this effort. 4 deps are missing from Fedora Rawhide:

New package requests (spec there + scratch build):
- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812857 python-ws4py
- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812124 python-sphinxcontrib-openapi

Also want to restore orphan/dead packages (not sure about the process btw), PR opened:
- https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-APScheduler/pull-request/2
- https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-re2/pull-request/2

New PR for the Zuul packaging is there but still a WIP until deps lands in Rawhide:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/zuul/pull-request/2

> Also want to restore orphan/dead packages (not sure about the process btw)

If just orphaned, click **take**
If retired for no more than 8 weeks, request unretirement via releng ticket
If retired for 8+ weeks, do a package review in bugzilla, request unretirement via releng ticket once approved

They both need a new package review.

Note that the PR for zuul also won't work, since the package was retired.
You'll need to go through the same unretirement process as for the two retired dependencies.

Sure I'll go over that process for zuul package too.

So updating resources for deps:
python-APScheduler: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1813957
python-fb-re2 (approved): https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812905

New package review request is: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838027

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1838027 ***