Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/redhat-openstack/openstack-selinux/el7-rpm/openstack-selinux.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/lhh/openstack-selinux-0.8.3-1.el7ost.src.rpm Description: SELinux Policies for OpenStack Fedora Account System Username: lon
I did a bunch of iterations through fedora-review, correcting the rpmlint and other errors that were found. All three resultant rpms have warnings about no documentation, which is fine, because there are no user-serviceable parts inside of them. Compared to the existing RPM in RDO, this moves all logic / settings in to the openstack-selinux source instead of the specfile (except the module names themselves, since they're all optional). The COPYING file is now using %license instead of %doc. Directories are explicitly listed, and the interface files (*.if) have been moved in to a devel file (which is not useful to any users).
This package is already in Fedora - but is no longer used nor built there, so this would go in to RDO proper, I'd think.
There is no %check as checking would require root on the build system, since it requires the kernel SELinux policies to be reloaded and altered to see if the AVC tests in the openstack-selinux-test RPM pass.
Review.rdoproject.org username: lhh
Small glitch in that spec file is slightly different from the one in src.rpm. Except that package is complying with RDO packaging guidelines, approved. 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 108 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/hguemar/1422733-openstack- selinux/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [x]: 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. [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]: 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 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: [-]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: 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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: openstack-selinux-0.8.3-1.el7.noarch.rpm openstack-selinux-devel-0.8.3-1.el7.noarch.rpm openstack-selinux-test-0.8.3-1.el7.noarch.rpm openstack-selinux-0.8.3-1.el7.src.rpm openstack-selinux.noarch: W: no-documentation openstack-selinux-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation openstack-selinux-test.noarch: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- openstack-selinux.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/redhat-openstack/openstack-selinux <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> openstack-selinux.noarch: W: no-documentation openstack-selinux-test.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/redhat-openstack/openstack-selinux <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> openstack-selinux-test.noarch: W: no-documentation openstack-selinux-devel.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/redhat-openstack/openstack-selinux <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> openstack-selinux-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/hguemar/1422733-openstack-selinux/srpm/openstack-selinux.spec 2017-02-16 17:16:40.252345731 +0100 +++ /home/hguemar/1422733-openstack-selinux/srpm-unpacked/openstack-selinux.spec 2017-02-16 03:48:46.000000000 +0100 @@ -119,5 +119,4 @@ - Use DATADIR instead of SHAREDIR for build - Drop useless SHAREDIR when calling local_settings.sh -- Move interfaces to -devel package * Tue Feb 14 2017 Lon Hohberger <lon> 0.8.0-1 Requires -------- openstack-selinux (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash /bin/sh policycoreutils policycoreutils-python selinux-policy-base selinux-policy-targeted openstack-selinux-test (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash bash openstack-selinux policycoreutils-python openstack-selinux-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): openstack-selinux selinux-policy-devel Provides -------- openstack-selinux: openstack-selinux openstack-selinux-test: openstack-selinux-test openstack-selinux-devel: openstack-selinux-devel Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/redhat-openstack/openstack-selinux/archive/0.8.3.tar.gz#/openstack-selinux-0.8.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ac4477bcde604f2c353958a82bd4c1630805f3c6d5c67c2a03aaa6ee2de26ade CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ac4477bcde604f2c353958a82bd4c1630805f3c6d5c67c2a03aaa6ee2de26ade Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1422733 -m rdo-mitaka-el7 Buildroot used: cloud7-openstack-mitaka-el7-build-repo_20520 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
SRPM updated. The spec file is correct; SRPM was incorrect.
https://review.rdoproject.org/r/#/c/5378
Ready for the step 3 in https://www.rdoproject.org/documentation/rdo-packaging/#how-to-add-a-new-package-to-rdo-trunk
https://review.rdoproject.org/r/#/c/5573/
Note: rdopkg seems to not work projects under review. I had to clone/review manually.
2017-03-02 19:20:13,915 INFO:dlrn-build:+ tar zcvf ../0.8.5.tar.gz --exclude=.git --transform=s@home/jenkins/workspace/DLRN-rpmbuild/DLRN/data/openstack-openstack-selinux.5@ --show-transformed-names /home/jenkins/workspace/DLRN-rpmbuild/DLRN/data/openstack-openstack-selinux dlrn doesn't really seem to like openstack-selinux. Thinks it should be openstack-openstack-selinux. Bug. https://review.rdoproject.org/jenkins/job/DLRN-rpmbuild/9226/console
https://people.redhat.com/lhh/openstack-selinux.spec https://people.redhat.com/lhh/openstack-selinux-0.8.5-1.el7ost.src.rpm
Gerrit review to drop tags (move out of review phase): https://review.rdoproject.org/r/#/c/5593/
Couple of issues: https://review.rdoproject.org/jenkins/job/rdoinfo-DLRN-check/701/console 1) Shouldn't it be using rpm-master? + zuul-cloner --workspace data/ https://review.rdoproject.org/r/p openstack/openstack-selinux-distgit --branch rpm-mitaka INFO:zuul.CloneMapper:Workspace path set to: data/ INFO:zuul.CloneMapper:Mapping projects to workspace... INFO:zuul.CloneMapper: openstack/openstack-selinux-distgit -> data/openstack/openstack-selinux-distgit INFO:zuul.CloneMapper:Expansion completed. INFO:zuul.Cloner:Preparing 1 repositories INFO:zuul.Cloner:Creating repo openstack/openstack-selinux-distgit from upstream https://review.rdoproject.org/r/p/openstack/openstack-selinux-distgit INFO:zuul.Cloner:upstream repo is missing branch rpm-mitaka INFO:zuul.Cloner:Falling back to branch master ERROR:zuul.Cloner:Fallback branch not found: master Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/zuul/lib/cloner.py", line 218, in prepareRepo commit = repo.checkout('remotes/origin/%s' % fallback_branch) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/zuul/merger/merger.py", line 135, in checkout repo.head.reference = ref File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/git/refs/symbolic.py", line 284, in set_reference raise ValueError("Could not extract object from %s" % ref) ValueError: Could not extract object from remotes/origin/master 2) Bug. ^ Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/bin/zuul-cloner", line 11, in <module> sys.exit(main()) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/zuul/cmd/cloner.py", line 162, in main cloner.main() File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/zuul/cmd/cloner.py", line 157, in main cloner.execute() File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/zuul/lib/cloner.py", line 74, in execute self.prepareRepo(project, dest) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/zuul/lib/cloner.py", line 223, in prepareRepo project, fallback_branch, commit) UnboundLocalError: local variable 'commit' referenced before assignment 3) Bug. ^