Hide Forgot
Spec URL: https://gist.github.com/honza/f943cff8fee820f01b3ab0bd9bbf142f/raw/db1d211e6e393a2e149823e0e0e4e825f3946c1c/tripleo-ui.spec SRPM URL: https://gist.github.com/honza/f943cff8fee820f01b3ab0bd9bbf142f/raw/db1d211e6e393a2e149823e0e0e4e825f3946c1c/tripleo-ui-0.0.1-2.fc24.src.rpm Description: Web UI for the TripleO project in Openstack Fedora Account System Username: honza
Source tarball created with: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/343834/
I reviewed both openstack-tripleo-ui and openstack-tripleo-ui-deps. The latter being a bunch of build-time dependencies that we temporarily bundle, as it's not practical to package them separately for now. As they're not required at run-time, they should not be shipped. We reviewed licensing for all dependencies, and clarified all the litigious ones (esp. react.js) with Legal team. The other ones are licensed under acceptable licenses. See following discussion on the list: https://www.redhat.com/archives/rdo-list/2016-July/msg00076.html Package builds and runs fine, and has been reviewed upstream: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/344932 So I hereby approve this package into RDO, see formal review below. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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". 231 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/hguemar/tripleo-ui/packaging /openstack-tripleo-ui/review-openstack-tripleo-ui/licensecheck.txt [-]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/httpd, /etc/httpd/conf.d, /var/www [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: Using prebuilt rpms. [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. [-]: 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 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [-]: 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: openstack-tripleo-ui-0.0.1-0.1.38664a1git.el7.noarch.rpm openstack-tripleo-ui-0.0.1-0.1.38664a1git.el7.src.rpm openstack-tripleo-ui.noarch: E: no-description-tag openstack-tripleo-ui.src: E: no-description-tag 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- openstack-tripleo-ui (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(openstack-tripleo-ui) Provides -------- openstack-tripleo-ui: config(openstack-tripleo-ui) openstack-tripleo-ui Source checksums ---------------- http://tarballs.openstack.org/tripleo-ui/tripleo-ui-38664a1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a6c2b194c2601f62bac0a916cfc6c3cff6877d5913684fbf790dc9154e2567fc CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a6c2b194c2601f62bac0a916cfc6c3cff6877d5913684fbf790dc9154e2567fc Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -p -n openstack-tripleo-ui -D DISTTAG=el7 Buildroot used: fedora-24-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
I got this error while running fedora-review: WARNING: Cannot download url: http://tarballs.openstack.org/tripleo-ui/tripleo-ui-0.0.1.tgz INFO: No upstream for (Source0): tripleo-ui-0.0.1.tgz also got this warning while building the RPM: bogus date in %changelog: Thu Jul 25 2016 Honza Pokorny <honza@redhat.com> 0.0.1
@Ivan: I used the sources from the OpenStack patchset. As for the sources tarball issue, upstream has not yet tagged a version, so they ship git snapshots. http://tarballs.openstack.org/tripleo-ui/