SPEC: https://github.com/centos-opstools/opstools-ansible/raw/master/opstools-ansible.spec SRPM: https://github.com/jbadiapa/packages/raw/master/opstools/opstools-ansible-0.1.0-2.el7.centos.src.rpm rpmlint opstools-ansible.spec ../SRPM/opstools-ansible-0.1.0-2.el7.centos.src.rpm 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
fedora-review returns: Rpmlint ------- Checking: opstools-ansible-0.1.0-2.fc27.noarch.rpm opstools-ansible-0.1.0-2.fc27.src.rpm opstools-ansible.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.0.2-0.20170424 ['0.1.0-2.fc27', '0.1.0-2'] opstools-ansible.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/sbin/opstools-server-installation /usr/bin/env python opstools-ansible.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary opstools-server-installation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. Please fix the issues, especially the wring interpreter error. In RPM world, we know which interpreter is installed at what place.
Not sure if this is problem of package review, but my fedora-review fails on: DEBUG util.py:522: Executing command: ['/usr/bin/yum-builddep', '--installroot', '/var/lib/mock/centos-opstools-el7-x86_64/root/', '/var/lib/mock/centos-opstools-el7-x86_64/root//builddir/build/SRPMS/opstools-ansible-0.1.0-2.el7.src.rpm'] with env {'PATH': '/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin', 'PROMPT_COMMAND': 'printf "\\033]0;<mock-chroot>\\007"', 'PS1': '<mock-chroot> \\s-\\v\\$ ', 'TERM': 'vt100', 'SHELL': '/bin/bash', 'LC_MESSAGES': 'C', 'HOSTNAME': 'mock', 'LANG': 'en_US.UTF-8', 'HOME': '/builddir'} and shell False DEBUG util.py:439: Yum-utils package has been deprecated, use dnf instead. DEBUG util.py:439: See 'man yum2dnf' for more information. DEBUG util.py:439: Getting requirements for opstools-ansible-0.1.0-2.el7.src DEBUG util.py:439: --> python-tox-2.3.1-1.el7.noarch DEBUG util.py:439: Error: No Package found for ansible-lint DEBUG util.py:439: Error: No Package found for pandoc DEBUG util.py:439: Error: No Package found for yamllint DEBUG util.py:577: Child return code was: 1 I've used centos-opstools env for mock. Given that we want to build package within CentOS OpsTools SIG, we gonna need to either build(tag) all the dependencies or avoid being dependent on packages we don't ship.
(In reply to Martin Magr from comment #2) > Not sure if this is problem of package review, but my fedora-review fails on: > > DEBUG util.py:522: Executing command: ['/usr/bin/yum-builddep', > '--installroot', '/var/lib/mock/centos-opstools-el7-x86_64/root/', > '/var/lib/mock/centos-opstools-el7-x86_64/root//builddir/build/SRPMS/ > opstools-ansible-0.1.0-2.el7.src.rpm'] with env {'PATH': > '/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin', 'PROMPT_COMMAND': 'printf > "\\033]0;<mock-chroot>\\007"', 'PS1': '<mock-chroot> \\s-\\v\\$ ', 'TERM': > 'vt100', 'SHELL': '/bin/bash', 'LC_MESSAGES': 'C', 'HOSTNAME': 'mock', > 'LANG': 'en_US.UTF-8', 'HOME': '/builddir'} and shell False > DEBUG util.py:439: Yum-utils package has been deprecated, use dnf instead. > DEBUG util.py:439: See 'man yum2dnf' for more information. > DEBUG util.py:439: Getting requirements for opstools-ansible-0.1.0-2.el7.src > DEBUG util.py:439: --> python-tox-2.3.1-1.el7.noarch > DEBUG util.py:439: Error: No Package found for ansible-lint > DEBUG util.py:439: Error: No Package found for pandoc > DEBUG util.py:439: Error: No Package found for yamllint > DEBUG util.py:577: Child return code was: 1 > > > I've used centos-opstools env for mock. Given that we want to build package > within CentOS OpsTools SIG, we gonna need to either build(tag) all the > dependencies or avoid being dependent on packages we don't ship. It seems that you need to enable the epel repository, or enable another repo with those packages.
You cannot enable EPEL repo when you will be building the package in CBS.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Check did not completechecksum differs and there are problems running diff. Please verify manually. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL ===== 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "*No copyright* Apache", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 185 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mrunge/review/1447914-opstools-ansible/licensecheck.txt [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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 112640 bytes in 4 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 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]: 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]: 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. [!]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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]: 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: opstools-ansible-0.1.0-2.fc27.noarch.rpm opstools-ansible-0.1.0-2.fc27.src.rpm opstools-ansible.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary opstools-server-installation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- opstools-ansible.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary opstools-server-installation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/mrunge/review/1447914-opstools-ansible/srpm/opstools-ansible.spec 2017-08-22 17:35:20.533138410 +0200 +++ /home/mrunge/review/1447914-opstools-ansible/srpm-unpacked/opstools-ansible.spec 2017-05-09 13:39:42.000000000 +0200 @@ -1,17 +1,16 @@ -%global with_docs 0 -%{!?_licensedir: %global license %%doc} - Name: opstools-ansible Version: 0.1.0 -Release: 4%{?dist} +Release: 2%{?dist} Summary: Ansible playbooks for Operational Tools Server installation License: ASL 2.0 URL: https://github.com/centos-opstools -Source0: https://github.com/centos-opstools/opstools-ansible/archive/master.tar.gz +Source0: https://github.com/centos-opstools/%{name}/archive/%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz Group: Applications/System BuildArch: noarch +BuildRequires: python-markdown + Requires: ansible > 2.2 @@ -19,25 +18,12 @@ Ansible playbooks for installing the server side of OpenStack operational tools -%if 0%{?with_docs} -%package docs -Summary: Ansible playbooks for Operational Tools Server installation - -BuildRequires: python-sphinx - -%description docs -Ansible playbooks for installing the server side of OpenStack operational tools - -It contains documentation for the opstools-ansible. -%endif - %prep -%autosetup -n %{name}-master +%autosetup -n %{name}-%{version} sed -i -e 's/^\#!\/usr\/bin\/env\ python/#\!\/usr\/bin\/python2.7/' opstools-server-installation.py %build -%if 0%{?with_docs} -# For building docs -%{__python2} setup.py build_sphinx -%endif +python -m markdown README.md > README.html +sed -i -e 's/docs\/tripleo\-integration\.md/docs\/tripleo\-integration\.html/' -e 's/>tripleo\-integration\.md</>tripleo\-integration\.html</' README.html +python -m markdown docs/tripleo-integration.md > tripleo-integration.html %install @@ -56,22 +42,14 @@ %files %license LICENSE.txt -%doc README.rst +%doc README.md +%doc README.html +%doc docs/tripleo-integration.md +%doc tripleo-integration.html %{_datadir}/%{name}/ %{_sbindir}/opstools-server-installation -%if 0%{?with_docs} -%files docs -%doc docs/build/html -%endif -%changelog -* Wed May 17 2017 Chandan Kumar <chkumar> - 0.1.0-4 -- Remove markdown references from doc -- Use github master branch tarball - -* Mon May 15 2017 Chandan Kumar <chkumar> - 0.1.0-3 -- Added doc subpackage -- README.md docs are moved to RST +%changelog * Mon Apr 24 2017 Juan Badia Payno <jbadiapa> - 0.1.0-2 - Documentation generated automaticaly Requires -------- opstools-ansible (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python2.7 ansible Provides -------- opstools-ansible: opstools-ansible Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/centos-opstools/opstools-ansible/archive/master.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ERROR CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 993e7dac520aa1f3c27d80b39ac01c10a29a469477fed8c2a111a14cc2a5e5af Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1447914 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-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 There are a few issues, but none of them are actually blocking this from being included in RDO. For next time, please make sure the spec file distributed in SRPM and the spec file linked in the review are actually the same. Files from github do not preserve timestamps, they are generated on-the-fly. Since there is no release, one couldn't speak of "latest release packaged"