Spec URL: https://rjmco.fedorapeople.org/python-novaclient-os-networks/novaclient-os-diskconfig.spec SRPM URL: https://rjmco.fedorapeople.org/python-novaclient-os-diskconfig/python-novaclient-os-diskconfig-0.1.3-1.fc25.src.rpm Description: Disk Config extension for python-novaclient Fedora Account System Username: rjmco Scratch build URLs: rawhide http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13225741 f24 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13225752 f23 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13225760 f22 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13225764 copr repo: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/rjmco/python-novaclient-os-diskconfig/ I've let upstream know that I am maintaining a package for the Fedora Project (https://github.com/rackerlabs/os_diskconfig_python_novaclient_ext/pull/8) and simultaneously asked them to include the missing LICENSE file. The package name differs from the upstream name to fall inline with the package name structure agreed between Christos Triantafyllidis, gil cattaneo, Jon Ciesla and Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1286867 for a similar add-on to python-novaclient.
I'll review that one. A very quick note, the spec URL is wrong (seems to refer to another package) but I found the correct one. I'll update this tomorrow with my complete review. Cheers, Christos
Hello, Everything looks good with that one. Just thing to comment: [?]: Given that both F25 and rawhide have novaclient for python3 would it be possible to compile it for python3 too? Can you please check if it compiles cleanly (it should) with python3 and if so add a python3 subpackage for F25 and above? Following is the full review: 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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ctrianta/FedoraReviews/novaclient-os-diskconfig/python- novaclient-os-diskconfig/licensecheck.txt [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/os_diskconfig_python_novaclient_ext(python2) [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 [-]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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. [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: [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. [-]: 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 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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [?]: Given that both F25 and rawhide have novaclient for python3 would it be possible to compile it for python3 too? Rpmlint ------- Checking: python2-novaclient-os-diskconfig-0.1.3-1.fc26.noarch.rpm python-novaclient-os-diskconfig-0.1.3-1.fc26.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- python2-novaclient-os-diskconfig (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-novaclient Provides -------- python2-novaclient-os-diskconfig: python-novaclient-os-diskconfig python2-novaclient-os-diskconfig python2.7dist(os-diskconfig-python-novaclient-ext) python2dist(os-diskconfig-python-novaclient-ext) Source checksums ---------------- http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/o/os_diskconfig_python_novaclient_ext/os_diskconfig_python_novaclient_ext-0.1.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e7d19233a7b73c70244d2527d162d8176555698e7c621b41f689be496df15e75 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e7d19233a7b73c70244d2527d162d8176555698e7c621b41f689be496df15e75 I'll wait in case there is an update in the spec file for python3 before marking this as successful review. Cheers, Christos
Hi Christos, I've modified the spec file to build both python2 and python3 packages for Fedora 25 and above. Fedora 24 doesn't have the required dependencies hence why it will only build the python2 package. I've uploaded a new src.rpm file to fedorapeople.org and uploaded the git repository to pagure.io. Please find the updated URLs for both and the new scratch builds: Spec URL: https://pagure.io/python-novaclient-os-diskconfig/raw/python-novaclient-os-diskconfig-0.1.3-1/f/python-novaclient-os-diskconfig.spec SRPM URL: https://rjmco.fedorapeople.org/python-novaclient-os-diskconfig/python-novaclient-os-diskconfig-0.1.3-1.fc24.src.rpm Scratch build URLs: rawhide https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=17128708 f26 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=17128706 f25 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=17128704 f24 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=17128702 The copr repo remains the same and has been rebuilt. copr repo: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/rjmco/python-novaclient-os-diskconfig/ Cheers, Ricardo
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the submitter to proceed with the review. If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take this ticket. Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.
It looks like I missed Ricardo's update LONG time. Sorry for this! Ricardo I'm not sure if you are still interested in this given that I know that your work shifted and probably won't use that any more. Let me know if you want to proceed with it or if we can just close it. Given that nobody else commented all this time, I'd say the general interest would be low. Cheers, Christos
> Given that nobody else commented all this time, I'd say the general interest would be low. I agree with Christos. I'll close the ticket.