Spec URL: https://rtnpro.fedorapeople.org/Packages/SPECS/statscache.spec SRPM URL: https://rtnpro.fedorapeople.org/Packages/SRPMS/statscache-0.0.1-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: Statscache is a plugin to the fedmsg-hub that sits listening in our infrastructure. When new messages arrive, it will pass them off to `plugins <https://github.com/fedora-infra/statscache_plugins>`_ that will calculate and store various statistics. If we want a new kind of statistic to be kept, we write a new plugin for it. It will come with a tiny flask frontend, much like datagrepper, that allows you to query for this or that stat in this or that format (csv, json, maybe html or svg too but that might be overkill). The idea being that we can then build neater smarter frontends that can render fedmsg-based activity very quickly.. and perhaps later drill-down into the *details* kept in datagrepper. Fedora Account System Username:rtnpro
Ratnadeep, this looks good but I found four areas here that need work before this can pass review: [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. You should include the COPYING.LESSER file in the %files section also. Also, there is a %license macro that can be used instead of %doc for license files. That is nice to have as it marks up exactly what and what is not a legal doc for automated checks of the whole distro later on. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text [!]: Three files/dirs problems I noticed: - statscache-common should probably own the directory %{python_sitelib}/%{modname}/ - statscache-web should probably own the directory %{_datadir}/%{modname}/ - Lastly, I don't think %{_sysconfdir}/fedmsg.d/ should be declared in the '%files common' section. The core fedmsg package already owns that directory. [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in statscache-common , statscache-web , statscache-consumer The gist here is that the statscache-web and statscache-consumer packages should declare a requirement on the statscache-common package (so that it gets pulled in automatically on install). A line like this: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in each sub-package should do it. [!]: The statscache-consumer package should Require fedmsg-hub. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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: "Unknown or generated". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/threebean/1234605-statscache/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/statscache, /usr/share/statscache [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python2.7/site- packages/statscache, /usr/share/statscache [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /etc/fedmsg.d(fedmsg) [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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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]: 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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in statscache-common , statscache-web , statscache-consumer [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. [x]: %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]: 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: statscache-common-0.0.1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm statscache-web-0.0.1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm statscache-consumer-0.0.1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm statscache-0.0.1-1.fc20.src.rpm statscache-web.noarch: W: no-documentation statscache-consumer.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fedmsg -> Feds statscache-consumer.noarch: W: no-documentation statscache.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US https -> HTTP statscache.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US github -> git hub, git-hub, GitHub statscache.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frontend -> fronted, front end, front-end statscache.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datagrepper -> daguerreotype statscache.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US csv -> cs, cs v, CST statscache.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US json -> son, j son statscache.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US html -> HTML, ht ml, ht-ml statscache.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US svg -> avg, sag, VG statscache.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frontends -> front ends, front-ends, fronds 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- statscache-consumer.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fedmsg -> feeding statscache-consumer.noarch: W: no-documentation statscache-web.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Requires -------- statscache-consumer (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) statscache-common statscache-common (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(statscache-common) python(abi) statscache-web (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-flask statscache-common Provides -------- statscache-consumer: statscache-consumer statscache-common: config(statscache-common) statscache-common statscache-web: statscache-web Source checksums ---------------- https://rtnpro.fedorapeople.org/statscache-0.0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7e3a080f2c1be68ddc4c8cda8582d7eda4c2dc4ab02a6007e4d210dc2babd1b1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7e3a080f2c1be68ddc4c8cda8582d7eda4c2dc4ab02a6007e4d210dc2babd1b1 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1234605 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, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Any updates here, Ratnadeep? Is there anything I can help with?
Hey Ralph, >[!]: Three files/dirs problems I noticed: > - statscache-common should probably own the directory > %{python_sitelib}/%{modname}/ > - statscache-web should probably own the directory > %{_datadir}/%{modname}/ > - Lastly, I don't think %{_sysconfdir}/fedmsg.d/ should be declared in the > '%files common' section. The core fedmsg package already owns that > directory. Do you think it's a good idea to change the owner for %{python_sitelib}/%{modname} and for %{_datadir}/%{modname}. rpmlint on the RPMs throws warnings like: - non-standard uid - non-standard gid for both the lib and data dirs. What I see here: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/fedmsg.git/tree/fedmsg.spec is that you have changed owners for log/ and run/ dirs only. %attr(755, %{modname}, %{modname}) %dir %{_var}/log/%{modname} %attr(775, %{modname}, %{modname}) %dir %{_var}/run/%{modname}
Yeah, the lib and data dirs shouldn't have their owner changed.
Hi Ralph, I have updated the SPEC and SRPM files at: Spec URL: https://rtnpro.fedorapeople.org/Packages/SPECS/statscache.spec SRPM URL: https://rtnpro.fedorapeople.org/Packages/SRPMS/statscache-0.0.1-1.fc22.src.rpm Here's a report from fedora-review tool: http://paste.fedoraproject.org/249253/38158822 It looks good to go.
Excellent. Package is APPROVED!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: statscache Short Description: Statscache is a plugin to the fedmsg-hub that sits listening in our infrastructure. When new messages arrive, it will pass them off to `plugins <https://github.com/fedora-infra/statscache_plugins>`_ that will calculate and store various statistics. If we want a new kind of statistic to be kept, we write a new plugin for it. It will come with a tiny flask frontend, much like datagrepper, that allows you to query for this or that stat in this or that format (csv, json, maybe html or svg too but that might be overkill). The idea being that we can then build neater smarter frontends that can render fedmsg-based activity very quickly.. and perhaps later drill-down into the *details* kept in datagrepper. Owners: rtnpro Branches: F-23, F-22, F-21 InitialCC: rbean
Git done (by process-git-requests).
statscache-0.0.1-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 21. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-15021
statscache-0.0.1-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-15022
statscache-0.0.1-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-15023
statscache-0.0.1-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.\nIf you want to test the update, you can install it with \n su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update statscache'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-15021
statscache-0.0.1-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.\nIf you want to test the update, you can install it with \n su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update statscache'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-15022
statscache-0.0.1-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.\nIf you want to test the update, you can install it with \n su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update statscache'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-15023
statscache-0.0.3-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-2b54d43b77
statscache-0.0.4-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-2637c5b8e2
statscache-0.0.4-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update statscache' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-2637c5b8e2
statscache-0.0.4-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.