Homepage: https://github.com/jlebon/atomic-devmode Spec URL: https://jlebon.fedorapeople.org/atomic-devmode.spec SRPM URL: https://jlebon.fedorapeople.org/atomic-devmode-0.1-1.fc23.src.rpm Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12502182 Fedora Account System Username: jlebon Description (from specfile): --- This package installs a Developer Mode boot option useful for trying out an Atomic Host without having to set up a cloud-init source. When booted, the system automatically logs in and starts the Cockpit container. --- More information on the motivation for this package can be found on the atomic-devel mailing list: https://lists.projectatomic.io/projectatomic-archives/atomic-devel/2015-December/msg00034.html This is my first package and thus, I need a sponsor. I am also the upstream maintainer for the project. Please let me know if I misfiled this, or if there's something else I should do to get the review process going. Thanks!
To clarify some more: this package is mainly meant for integration with Atomic Hosts. Getting the package in the repo is the first step. Then the kickstart files will have to be modified so that the boot menu item is added in the default image. If it will help, it should also be possible to make it compatible with the Cloud images, so that users would be able to do, e.g.: $ sudo dnf install atomic-devmode $ sudo /usr/libexec/atomic-devmode/atomic-devmode-install $ sudo reboot and then select "Developer Mode" in the GRUB 2 menu. However, being able to do the above means that you were able to get into the system in the first place, which means that you already have cloud-init set up. :) A more realistic alternate use case for supporting regular Cloud images would be e.g. someone who wants to build their own Cloud image which auto-logs in.
Sorry, I could not understand what is it. Could you please start with the better Summary and %description.
Hey Jonathan, I noticed the package is versioned as 0.1, but the upstream repo has no releases. This makes it difficult for someone to determine what was actually used as '%{name}.tar.gz'. Unless the link is an archive, you'd generally want to describe how the source archive was created (eg. commented shell commands one the line above). If you don't wish to tag releases perhaps snapshot versioning [1] would make more sense. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages
(In reply to Roman Tsisyk from comment #2) > Sorry, I could not understand what is it. > Could you please start with the better Summary and %description. (In reply to Roland Grunberg from comment #3) > Hey Jonathan, I noticed the package is versioned as 0.1, but the upstream > repo has no releases. This makes it difficult for someone to determine what > was actually used as '%{name}.tar.gz'. Unless the link is an archive, you'd > generally want to describe how the source archive was created (eg. commented > shell commands one the line above). Thanks Roland. I tagged v0.1 upstream: https://github.com/jlebon/atomic-devmode/releases/tag/v0.1 I also updated the specfile with a comment to explain how to create the archive: --- # Produced by `make archive` Source: %{name}.tar.gz --- Let me know if that's still no good.
(In reply to Roman Tsisyk from comment #2) > Sorry, I could not understand what is it. > Could you please start with the better Summary and %description. Hi Roman, Does the description make more sense in the context of this post? https://lists.projectatomic.io/projectatomic-archives/atomic-devel/2015-December/msg00034.html I can rework it, but need to know which parts don't make sense (or is it all of it? :)).
I will take this review, and am a sponsor.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: - License is a very old one (Library GPL, which is superseded by Lesser GPL) - COPYING is not installed - Using both %-style macros and $-style variables - Package contains a lot of files that don't currenlty conflict, but sound like they will very likely conflict easily - Hardcoded paths used (%_prefix}/lib vs %{_libdir}) - No %build section - No documentation ===== 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. [!]: 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. [-]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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. [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [!]: Package does not generate any conflict. [!]: 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. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [-]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [-]: 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]: 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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: atomic-devmode-0.1-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm atomic-devmode-0.1-1.fc21.src.rpm atomic-devmode.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libpwquality atomic-devmode.x86_64: E: no-binary atomic-devmode.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib atomic-devmode.x86_64: W: no-documentation atomic-devmode.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US init -> unit, int, nit atomic-devmode.src:32: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/atomic-devmode atomic-devmode.src: W: no-%build-section atomic-devmode.src: W: invalid-url Source0: atomic-devmode.tar.gz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- atomic-devmode.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libpwquality atomic-devmode.x86_64: E: no-binary atomic-devmode.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib atomic-devmode.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- atomic-devmode (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash atomic cloud-init grub2-tools libpwquality tmux Provides -------- atomic-devmode: atomic-devmode atomic-devmode(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1297552 Buildroot used: fedora-21-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Oh, and you should mark the package as noarch probably, since I odn't think there's anything archful in there.
(In reply to Patrick Uiterwijk from comment #8) > Oh, and you should mark the package as noarch probably, since I odn't think > there's anything archful in there. Will do. Thanks for the review!
jlebon's scratch build of atomic-devmode-0.2-1.fc23.src.rpm for f23 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12550898
Updated: Homepage: https://github.com/jlebon/atomic-devmode Spec URL: https://jlebon.fedorapeople.org/atomic-devmode.spec SRPM URL: https://jlebon.fedorapeople.org/atomic-devmode-0.2-1.fc23.src.rpm Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12550898 --- (In reply to Patrick Uiterwijk from comment #7) > Issues: > - License is a very old one (Library GPL, which is superseded by Lesser GPL) Fixed! (Updated to LGPLGv3+) > - COPYING is not installed Fixed! > - Using both %-style macros and $-style variables Fixed! > - Package contains a lot of files that don't currenlty conflict, but sound > like they will very likely conflict easily This was a misunderstanding. Should be fine. > - Hardcoded paths used (%_prefix}/lib vs %{_libdir}) Fixed! > - No %build section Fixed! > - No documentation Fixed! > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: atomic-devmode-0.1-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm > atomic-devmode-0.1-1.fc21.src.rpm > atomic-devmode.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libpwquality This is an issue with the libpwquality package, which contains the /usr/bin/pwmake binary, which my scripts require. > atomic-devmode.x86_64: E: no-binary Fixed! > atomic-devmode.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib Fixed! > atomic-devmode.x86_64: W: no-documentation Fixed! > atomic-devmode.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US init -> unit, > int, nit Not a typo. The name of the package mentioned is "cloud-init". > atomic-devmode.src:32: E: hardcoded-library-path in > %{_prefix}/lib/atomic-devmode Fixed! > atomic-devmode.src: W: no-%build-section Fixed! > atomic-devmode.src: W: invalid-url Source0: atomic-devmode.tar.gz I provide instructions right above this line for how to obtain the archive: --- # From `make archive REF=v${VERSION}` --- (In reply to Patrick Uiterwijk from comment #8) > Oh, and you should mark the package as noarch probably, since I odn't think > there's anything archful in there. Done!
Thank you, the package looks good now, and is APPROVED.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/atomic-devmode
Thanks Patrick for taking the time to review this request.
This bug was accidentally moved from POST to MODIFIED via an error in automation, please see mmccune with any questions
I see this package in F24+ repository at least.