Spec URL: http://web.stanford.edu/~sthiell/sasutils.spec SRPM URL: http://web.stanford.edu/~sthiell/sasutils-0.3.3-1.el7.src.rpm Description: Hi reviewers! We have developed a new set of system utilities to manage SAS fabrics (eg. SAS JBODs or SAS switches) that we consider stable as of today. I would like to contribute a package to Fedora and epel7. sasutils is a set of command-line tools based on a small Python library to ease the administration of large Serial Attached SCSI (SAS) fabrics. sasutils gets most of the system data from sysfs but also requires sg3_utils and smp_utils for some advanced features (SES). Please take a look at the following document for more information: https://github.com/stanford-rc/sasutils/blob/master/README.rst or https://pypi.org/project/sasutils/ Fedora Account System Username: sthiell
Hi! I just uploaded an improved version. Spec URL: http://web.stanford.edu/~sthiell/sasutils.spec SRPM URL: http://web.stanford.edu/~sthiell/sasutils-0.3.4-1.fc24.src.rpm Changes: - build against python3 only - use %python_provide as recommended by the packaging guidelines - include LICENSE.txt
Some quick comments: - remove BuildRoot line, it set by rpmbuild - use one package per line in buildreq, req (and sort them) - remove %clean rm -rf %{buildroot} - remove %defattr(-,root,root,-) line - is Provides: python3-%{name} = %{version} needed when doing: %{?python_provide:%python_provide python-sasutils} - I prefer to list bin files first in %files - can you provide a rawhide scratch build in koji? Upstream (outside fedora review): - add man pages
One more: Summary: Serial Attached SCSI (SAS) Linux utilities change to Serial Attached SCSI (SAS) utilities Fedora/RHEL is available for Linux only any way.
Hi Terje, Thanks for your help, much appreciated. I think that I need to keep: Provides: python3-%{name} = %{version} because the package name is not python3-sasutils (it is not done automatically in that case). Note: I primarily want to focus on the CLI tools, hence the name 'sasutils'. I was thinking of an alternative solution which would be to just remove all 'provides' for pythonX-sasutils in this case. Duly noted for the man pages. I made all your other proposed changes and just uploaded updated files: Spec URL: http://web.stanford.edu/~sthiell/sasutils.spec SRPM URL: http://web.stanford.edu/~sthiell/sasutils-0.3.4-1.fc24.src.rpm I triggered a scratch build as you recommended against rawhide. It available here: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20331379 Please let me know if you see anything else that could be fixed or improved.
Updated version and added man pages. Spec URL: http://web.stanford.edu/~sthiell/sasutils.spec SRPM URL: http://web.stanford.edu/~sthiell/sasutils-0.3.8-1.fc26.src.rpm New rawhide scratch build in koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21314914 Thanks!
Hi, - The Group: tag is not needed in Fedora. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections - You didn't remove the line: Provides: python3-%{name} = %{version} which is not useful with %{?python_provide:%python_provide python%{python3_pkgversion}-%{srcname}} - You've got a whole bunch of rpmlint error because some of Python files contain a shebang: Checking: sasutils-0.3.8-1.fc27.noarch.rpm sasutils-0.3.8-1.fc27.src.rpm sasutils.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/sasutils/cli/sas_counters.py /usr/bin/env python sasutils.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/sasutils/cli/sas_counters.py 644 /usr/bin/env python sasutils.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/sasutils/cli/sas_devices.py /usr/bin/env python sasutils.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/sasutils/cli/sas_devices.py 644 /usr/bin/env python sasutils.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/sasutils/cli/sas_discover.py /usr/bin/env python sasutils.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/sasutils/cli/sas_discover.py 644 /usr/bin/env python sasutils.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/sasutils/cli/sas_mpath_snic_alias.py /usr/bin/env python sasutils.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/sasutils/cli/sas_mpath_snic_alias.py 644 /usr/bin/env python sasutils.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/sasutils/cli/sas_sd_snic_alias.py /usr/bin/env python sasutils.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/sasutils/cli/sas_sd_snic_alias.py 644 /usr/bin/env python sasutils.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/sasutils/cli/ses_report.py /usr/bin/env python sasutils.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/sasutils/cli/ses_report.py 644 /usr/bin/env python sasutils.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sas_mpath_snic_alias sasutils.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sas_sd_snic_alias 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 12 errors, 2 warnings. That's a no-no in Fedora. Remove them in %prep with something like: find -name \*.py | xargs sed -i -e '1 {/^#!/d}
Hello Robert-André, Thanks much for your time, that's very helpful. I read what I missed in the packaging guidelines and made the changes you requested. Spec URL: http://web.stanford.edu/~sthiell/sasutils.spec SRPM URL: http://web.stanford.edu/~sthiell/sasutils-0.3.8-2.fc26.src.rpm Koji rawhide scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21404709 Please let me know what you think.
It's all good, package accepted. 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "*No copyright* Apache", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/sasutils/review-sasutils/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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 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: 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]: 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. [-]: 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: [-]: 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). [?]: 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]: 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: sasutils-0.3.8-2.fc28.noarch.rpm sasutils-0.3.8-2.fc28.src.rpm sasutils.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sas_mpath_snic_alias sasutils.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sas_sd_snic_alias 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/sasutils
Package seems to be part of Fedora and report can be closed?
Package imported, closing ticket.