Spec URL: https://pecameron.fedorapeople.org/ovn-kubernetes/openvswitch-ovn-kubernetes.spec SRPM URL: https://pecameron.fedorapeople.org/ovn-kubernetes/openvswitch-ovn-kubernetes-0.1.0-1.fc27.src.rpm Description: This allows kubernetes (and Openshift) to use Open Virtual Networking (OVN) Fedora Account System Username: pecameron
Why is there "ExclusiveArch: x86_64"? Should this be restricted to all Golang-supported arches?
RE comment #1 I have access to x86_64 and that is were the work was done. This connects Openshift/kubernetes and OVN so it will be supported on all common environments. I will delete the "ExclusiveArch" line.
ackage Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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)", "CDDL", "CC by (v4.0)", "CC by-sa (v4.0)", "*No copyright* BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* Apache", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)", "*No copyright* LGPL", "*No copyright* MPL (v2.0)", "ISC", "CDDL (v1.0)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like) BSD (2 clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like) BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "GPL (v3)", "LGPL (v3)", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 5278 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/admiller/reviews/1536159-openvswitch-ovn- kubernetes/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/openvswitch [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: 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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 51200 bytes in 7 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]: 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]: %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]: 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]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define _rundir /run, %define _py2 python2, %define _py2 python [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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: openvswitch-ovn-kubernetes-0.1.0-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm openvswitch-ovn-kubernetes-0.1.0-1.fc28.src.rpm openvswitch-ovn-kubernetes.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory openvswitch-ovn-kubernetes.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://www.github.com/openvswitch/ovn-kubernetes <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> openvswitch-ovn-kubernetes.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- openvswitch-ovn-kubernetes (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(openvswitch-ovn-kubernetes) libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- openvswitch-ovn-kubernetes: config(openvswitch-ovn-kubernetes) openvswitch-ovn-kubernetes openvswitch-ovn-kubernetes(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/openvswitch/ovn-kubernetes/archive/09d595e5e85094bbe8f95bfb2208a29c17608677/ovn-kubernetes-git09d595e.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 99c920eaaa8b9e19ca9f25c02d15acd81ed1e8e04e00fe47b76bc378307e6550 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 99c920eaaa8b9e19ca9f25c02d15acd81ed1e8e04e00fe47b76bc378307e6550 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1536159 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 Other than the ExclusiveArch line, I'm happy with the package as it stands. Please fix that, but I don't feel the need to block based on that at this time. APPROVED
admiller Thanks for doing the review. I deleted the "ExclusiveArch" line and updated the files. Now its on to requesting a repo...
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/openvswitch-ovn-kubernetes