Spec URL: https://roshi.fedorapeople.org/packages/testcloud.spec SRPM URL: https://roshi.fedorapeople.org/packages/testcloud-0.1.0-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: testcloud is a relatively simple system which is capable of booting images designed for cloud systems on a local system with minimal configuration. testcloud is designed to be (and remain) somewhat simple, trading fancy cloud system features for ease of use and sanity in development. Fedora Account System Username: roshi
This is the first package I've submitted, so I'll need a sponsor. I'm also the upstream maintainer of this package. I don't have much experience with packaging, but I'm active on the QA side of things and would like to get more involved. Link to a successful copr build: https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/roshi/testCloud/builds/
wellcome there are two issues in the spec file 1. in install section rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT should be removed 2. %doc README.rst LICENSE you should use: %doc README.rst %license LICENSE thanks for your work
Thanks! Updated :)
> # sitelib for noarch packages, sitearch for others (remove the unneeded one) > BuildArch: noarch Notice the hint in brackets. > Requires: libvirt > Requires: libguestfs > Requires: libguestfs-tools > Requires: python-requests Explicit Requires benefit from a comment that explains the dependency. Without such comments, packagers sometimes remove dependencies accidentally. > %dir %{_sysconfdir}/testcloud > %dir %attr(777, root, root) %{_sharedstatedir}/testcloud/cache > %dir %attr(777, root, root) %{_sharedstatedir}/testcloud/instances > > %{_sysconfdir}/testcloud/settings.p* Directory %{_sharedstatedir}/testcloud/ is not included yet: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership What is the reason to make the directories *world-writable*? The README doesn't give a rationale either, but just says "any permitted user" which is anyone for a world-writable dir. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions > %{_sysconfdir}/testcloud/settings.p* Its default contents refer to /var/lib/testCloud/ with a different and misleading uppercase 'C' in the spelling. > /usr/bin/testcloud > %{python_sitelib}/testcloud/init.py Both define version 0.0.1 while the package claims it is 0.1.0.
(In reply to Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) from comment #4) > > # sitelib for noarch packages, sitearch for others (remove the unneeded one) > > > BuildArch: noarch > > Notice the hint in brackets. > Fixed. > > > Requires: libvirt > > Requires: libguestfs > > Requires: libguestfs-tools > > Requires: python-requests > > Explicit Requires benefit from a comment that explains the dependency. > Without such comments, packagers sometimes remove dependencies accidentally. > Added comments for each of the requires. > > > %dir %{_sysconfdir}/testcloud > > %dir %attr(777, root, root) %{_sharedstatedir}/testcloud/cache > > %dir %attr(777, root, root) %{_sharedstatedir}/testcloud/instances > > > > %{_sysconfdir}/testcloud/settings.p* > > Directory %{_sharedstatedir}/testcloud/ is not included yet: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership > Thanks for catching this. I didn't know I needed to be that explicit, I thought claiming the other dirs was enough. > What is the reason to make the directories *world-writable*? The README > doesn't give a rationale either, but just says "any permitted user" which is > anyone for a world-writable dir. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions > This one I'm not sure how to figure out. Getting permissions ironed out for this has been a pain so far - so I welcome any ideas :) As for the world-writeable permissions I was using, it allowed anyone to run the tool and download images to those directories. I've tested a couple other permissions sets and haven't found something that works. What's the best way to solve this? The user fires off a command that downloads the image (as that user), then virsh and friends take over, which need to be able to manipulate that directory. Would giving permissions to the qemu group be a better fit? > > > %{_sysconfdir}/testcloud/settings.p* > > Its default contents refer to /var/lib/testCloud/ with a different and > misleading uppercase 'C' in the spelling. > Thanks, thought I'd caught all the capitals (the old name was testCloud - but decided to change it before release). > > > /usr/bin/testcloud > > %{python_sitelib}/testcloud/init.py > > Both define version 0.0.1 while the package claims it is 0.1.0. Again, thought I'd caught everything that needed updating in the code. It's fixed now, thanks! Once I get the permissions ironed out I'll update the srpm and spec file online for you to take a look at. Thanks again!
> Getting permissions ironed out for this has been a pain so far - > so I welcome any ideas :) > What's the best way to solve this? More elegant, more ordinary and more expected would be to set up a local tree in user's $HOME and to work within that space. What else have you tried that hasn't worked? It seems simplification has gone too far, if users operate in a world-writable directory below /var/lib. It could be an idea to open a thread on devel@ list, mention any specific requirements there are, and ask for comments.
Out of curiosity, why is /var/lib/testcloud/cache used for cache dir instead of /var/cache/testcloud ? If I'm running out of space and I want to delete some caches, the latter location is expected and probably the first place where the user will look for such files.
(In reply to Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) from comment #6) > > Getting permissions ironed out for this has been a pain so far - > > so I welcome any ideas :) > > > What's the best way to solve this? > > More elegant, more ordinary and more expected would be to set up a local > tree in user's $HOME and to work within that space. What else have you tried > that hasn't worked? It seems simplification has gone too far, if users > operate in a world-writable directory below /var/lib. We've tried to put this directory tree in $HOME, but libvirt doesn't play well with data in a home directory, since it has to own all the images it works with. Libvirt already keeps it's images in /var/lib - so it seemed a logical place to put them in this case. In the case of the permissions, the user running the script needs to have write access to that directory in order to download images for libvirt to use. We're currently revisiting this to see if there's a viable approach for our use case. (In reply to Kamil Páral from comment #7) > Out of curiosity, why is /var/lib/testcloud/cache used for cache dir instead > of /var/cache/testcloud ? If I'm running out of space and I want to delete > some caches, the latter location is expected and probably the first place > where the user will look for such files. I suppose the name "cache" is a bit misleading in a system context. Originally, testcloud downloaded the image for your instance each time you launched an instance. This made everything take a lot longer to run, wasted bandwidth and disk space. So I started to cache the images, and use them as backing stores for instances; saving disk space and bandwidth. In your case, if you were to delete images from what is now /var/lib/testcloud/cache it would break any instances using those as a backing store. I've opened a ticket in phab [0] to make the name change on that directory to better communicate what it contains. [0] https://phab.qadevel.cloud.fedoraproject.org/T521
I've updated the package to get rid of the world writeable directory [0]. The spec file can be seen here [1]. In order to get permissions to work, I had to create a testcloud group (the user has to add themselves to this group), and add a polkit rule so that users can manage instances over ssh. [0] https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/roshi/testCloud/build/104053/ [1] https://roshi.fedorapeople.org/packages/testcloud.spec
testcloud has been updated to a new version that doesn't subprocess virt-install calls to do installation. I'm not Mike but I am a co-maintainer of testcloud https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/roshi/testCloud/build/140592/ https://tflink.fedorapeople.org/packages/testcloud/testcloud.spec
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 - Permissions on files are set properly. Note: See rpmlint output See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions ===== 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". 28 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/admiller/reviews/testcloud/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. [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. [-]: 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]: 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]: %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]: 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. [!]: 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]: 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]: 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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.2.13 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 dnf cache Start: cleaning dnf metadata Finish: cleaning dnf metadata INFO: enabled ccache Mock Version: 1.2.13 INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.13 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/admiller/reviews/testcloud/results/testcloud-0.1.5-4.fc24.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 24 install /home/admiller/reviews/testcloud/results/testcloud-0.1.5-4.fc24.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: testcloud-0.1.5-4.fc24.noarch.rpm testcloud-0.1.5-4.fc24.src.rpm testcloud.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libguestfs testcloud.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libguestfs-tools testcloud.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C testcloud is a relatively simple system which is capable of booting images designed for cloud systems on a local system with minimal configuration. testcloud is designed to be (and remain) somewhat simple, trading fancy cloud system features for ease of use and sanity in development. testcloud.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/testcloud testcloud testcloud.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/testcloud 775 testcloud.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/testcloud/instances testcloud testcloud.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/testcloud/instances 775 testcloud.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/testcloud/exceptions.py 644 /usr/bin/env testcloud.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/polkit-1/rules.d/99-testcloud-nonroot-libvirt-access.rules testcloud.noarch: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/testcloud/settings.py testcloud.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /etc/testcloud/settings.py testcloud.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/testcloud/image.py 644 /usr/bin/env testcloud.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/testcloud/domain-template.jinja testcloud testcloud.noarch: E: non-standard-executable-perm /var/lib/testcloud/domain-template.jinja 775 testcloud.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /var/lib/testcloud/domain-template.jinja testcloud.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/testcloud/util.py 644 /usr/bin/env testcloud.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/testcloud/cache testcloud testcloud.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/testcloud/cache 775 testcloud.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/testcloud/cli.py 644 /usr/bin/env testcloud.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/testcloud/instance.py 644 /usr/bin/env testcloud.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary testcloud testcloud.src: E: description-line-too-long C testcloud is a relatively simple system which is capable of booting images designed for cloud systems on a local system with minimal configuration. testcloud is designed to be (and remain) somewhat simple, trading fancy cloud system features for ease of use and sanity in development. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 16 errors, 6 warnings. Requires -------- testcloud (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/python config(testcloud) libguestfs libguestfs-tools libvirt libvirt-python net-tools polkit python(abi) python-jinja2 python-requests shadow-utils Provides -------- testcloud: config(testcloud) testcloud Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Rorosha/testcloud/archive/0.1.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 675bad6a9fea5defbf4c045dc12fd4ad3c9a92b3543542aa2aa1b51c705dfa05 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 675bad6a9fea5defbf4c045dc12fd4ad3c9a92b3543542aa2aa1b51c705dfa05 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --rpm-spec -n /tmp/testcloud-0.1.5-4.fc24.src.rpm -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, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 Notes ----- - Update %{__python} to %{__python2} so to not hit a buildroot with python3 as default and to comply with Python Packaging Guidelines - Fix install errors - Fix failed items in the template above
If you still need a Fedora Packager Sponsor, I would be happy to sponsor you.
For the template errors, testcloud isn't a GUI application and thus, doesn't need a desktop file unless I'm misunderstanding something. Can you give a few more details about the installation error? I can't reproduce the issue locally and I'm not really sure what's wrong.
Apologies on the desktop file mark, that was an oversight on my part. The install failure was from attempting to install in a rawhide mock chroot, which I can no longer reproduce either (the machine I did the original build/review on got re-installed over the past weekend from Fedora 22 to Fedora 23).
I've updated the specfile and code per review comments. https://tflink.fedorapeople.org/packages/testcloud/testcloud.spec https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/roshi/testCloud/build/144587/
APPROVED.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/testcloud
testcloud-0.1.7-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-3b22b49d3a
testcloud-0.1.7-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-f632781616
testcloud-0.1.7-1.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 testcloud' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-3b22b49d3a
testcloud-0.1.7-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.