Bug 1273883 - Review Request: osbs-client - Python command line client for OpenShift Build Service
Review Request: osbs-client - Python command line client for OpenShift Build...
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
Unspecified Unspecified
unspecified Severity unspecified
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Martin Milata
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On: 1203801
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2015-10-21 08:47 EDT by Jiri Popelka
Modified: 2016-12-20 10:05 EST (History)
6 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2016-12-20 10:05:29 EST
Type: Bug
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
mmilata: fedora‑review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Jiri Popelka 2015-10-21 08:47:25 EDT
Spec URL: https://jpopelka.fedorapeople.org/osbs-client.spec
SRPM URL: https://jpopelka.fedorapeople.org/osbs-client-0.15-1.fc24.src.rpm
It is able to query OpenShift v3 for various stuff related to building images.
It can initiate builds, list builds, get info about builds, get build logs...

Note: This is renaming review request of osbs package (Review Request bug #1203801).

Fedora Account System Username: jpopelka

scratch-build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11532887
Comment 1 Martin Milata 2015-10-23 07:49:43 EDT
Would you mind replacing

  Requires: python-osbs-client

with dependency on the exact same version of the subpackage? Otherwise looks good to me.
Comment 3 Martin Milata 2015-10-23 08:17:38 EDT
Thanks! Looks good now, attaching the review. I acknowledge that this is a package rename and that the Obsoletes/Provides are correct.

===== MUST items =====

[X]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[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". 38 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/mmilata/work/package-review/1273883
[X]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[X]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
     packages/osbs(python-osbs), /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
     packages/osbs/build(python-osbs), /usr/share/osbs(python-osbs),
[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
[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 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 %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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.
     Note: Multiple Release: tags found
[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
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

[X]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
[-]: 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 =====

[-]: 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-
[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.
[-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[X]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[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
[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 =====

[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.

Checking: osbs-client-0.15-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
osbs-client.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/bin/osbs /usr/bin/osbs2
osbs-client.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary osbs
python-osbs-client.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary osbs2
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
osbs-client.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/bin/osbs /usr/bin/osbs2
osbs-client.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary osbs
python-osbs-client.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary osbs2
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

osbs-client (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

python-osbs-client (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Source checksums
https://github.com/projectatomic/osbs-client/archive/49ef2c5d631b8a0c5f82a1d9354e6f7271ba5f12/osbs-client-49ef2c5d631b8a0c5f82a1d9354e6f7271ba5f12.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : ac212919655f3dcecb146958f127fa9ec760537d84eea6f6aa60e40cd0b5fa26
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ac212919655f3dcecb146958f127fa9ec760537d84eea6f6aa60e40cd0b5fa26

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1273883
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
Comment 4 Fedora End Of Life 2016-11-24 07:51:46 EST
This message is a reminder that Fedora 23 is nearing its end of life.
Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining
and issuing updates for Fedora 23. It is Fedora's policy to close all
bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time
this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora  'version'
of '23'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' 
to a later Fedora version.

Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not 
able to fix it before Fedora 23 is end of life. If you would still like 
to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version 
of Fedora, you are encouraged  change the 'version' to a later Fedora 
version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above.

Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's 
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a 
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes 
bugs or makes them obsolete.
Comment 5 Fedora End Of Life 2016-12-20 10:05:29 EST
Fedora 23 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2016-12-20. Fedora 23 is
no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further
security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug.

If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of
Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you
are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the
current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this

Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.