Bugzilla (bugzilla.redhat.com) will be under maintenance for infrastructure upgrades and will not be available on July 31st between 12:30 AM - 05:30 AM UTC. We appreciate your understanding and patience. You can follow status.redhat.com for details.
Bug 1411462 - Review Request: fegistry - The Fedora registry endpoint
Summary: Review Request: fegistry - The Fedora registry endpoint
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jeremy Cline
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2017-01-09 19:36 UTC by Randy Barlow
Modified: 2017-01-24 08:39 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version: fegistry-0.0.0-1.fc26
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2017-01-24 08:39:46 UTC
Type: ---
jeremy: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Randy Barlow 2017-01-09 19:36:52 UTC
Spec URL: https://bowlofeggs.fedorapeople.org/fegistry.spec
SRPM URL: https://bowlofeggs.fedorapeople.org/fegistry-0.0.0-1.fc26.src.rpm
Description: Fegistry is the container registry endpoint for Fedora's users. It will answer
the initial requests when users docker pull Fedora containers.
Fedora Account System Username: bowlofeggs

Comment 1 Jeremy Cline 2017-01-09 22:21:19 UTC

The rpmlint errors are wrong and have been fixed in https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpmlint/pull/86

FYI you can use the %autosetup macro and it'll apply your patches automatically. On the one hand I like the explicit application in the prep section, but on the other hand, it's nice to have a single place you declare patches (I've declared them and forgotten to apply them before). Anyway, just thought you'd like to know.

Package Review

[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

===== 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: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 14 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.6/site-
     packages, /usr/lib/python3.6
[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.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 573440 bytes in 35 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 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
[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
[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 =====

[-]: 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]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
[-]: 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
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[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]: 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 =====

[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Checking: python3-fegistry-0.0.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm
python3-fegistry.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/fegistry/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-36.opt-1.pyc expected 3361 (3.6), found 3379 (unknown)
python3-fegistry.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/fegistry/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-36.pyc expected 3361 (3.6), found 3379 (unknown)
python3-fegistry.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/fegistry/__pycache__/views.cpython-36.opt-1.pyc expected 3361 (3.6), found 3379 (unknown)
python3-fegistry.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/fegistry/__pycache__/views.cpython-36.pyc expected 3361 (3.6), found 3379 (unknown)
fegistry.src:38: W: setup-not-quiet
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 1 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

python3-fegistry (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


Source checksums
https://releases.pagure.org/fegistry/fegistry-0.0.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 8781ab8cc18dc2819a81b5ac91324ccc796738667bde85c6f9f7f45387e2800f
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8781ab8cc18dc2819a81b5ac91324ccc796738667bde85c6f9f7f45387e2800f

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1411462
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP

Comment 2 Gwyn Ciesla 2017-01-10 17:02:26 UTC
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/fegistry

Comment 3 Fedora Update System 2017-01-11 00:27:01 UTC
fegistry-0.0.0-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-af195b1854

Comment 4 Fedora Update System 2017-01-11 00:27:37 UTC
fegistry-0.0.0-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-7d2c29447f

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2017-01-11 03:23:14 UTC
fegistry-0.0.0-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-af195b1854

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2017-01-11 03:49:47 UTC
fegistry-0.0.0-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-7d2c29447f

Comment 7 Randy Barlow 2017-01-24 08:39:46 UTC
This package is retired.

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