Bug 1644194 - Review Request: ursa-major - A utility for managing module tags in koji's tag inheritance
Summary: Review Request: ursa-major - A utility for managing module tags in koji's tag...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: 28
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Robert-André Mauchin 🐧
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2018-10-30 08:04 UTC by Qixiang Wan
Modified: 2018-12-03 12:24 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2018-12-03 12:24:19 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:
zebob.m: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Qixiang Wan 2018-10-30 08:04:01 UTC
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~qwan/ursa-major/ursa-major.spec
SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~qwan/ursa-major/ursa-major-0.1.1-1.fc28.src.rpm
Description: 

Hi! I have packaged up ursa-major and would appreciate a review so we can get it into Fedora.

Ursa-Major is a utility to help managing module's koji tags in koji tag
inheritance. It reads configuration for tags from a tag config file, then
update koji tag inheritance accordingly.

More detail info can refer to: https://pagure.io/ursa-major

Fedora Account System Username: qwan

Comment 1 Qixiang Wan 2018-10-31 08:59:45 UTC
Scratch builds:

F28: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30564843
F29: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30564858
rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30564840

Above tasks are all passed. But epel7 build failed with an error of missing dependency of cairo:

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30568210

error is:

DEBUG util.py:439:   --> pytest-2.7.0-2.el7.noarch
DEBUG util.py:439:   --> python2-mock-1.0.1-9.el7.noarch
DEBUG util.py:439:  Error: Package: cairo-1.15.12-3.el7.x86_64 (build)
DEBUG util.py:439:             Requires: libEGL.so.1()(64bit)
DEBUG util.py:439:  Error: Package: cairo-1.15.12-3.el7.x86_64 (build)
DEBUG util.py:439:             Requires: libGL.so.1()(64bit)
DEBUG util.py:439:   You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem
DEBUG util.py:439:   You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest
DEBUG util.py:577:  Child return code was: 1
DEBUG util.py:188:  kill orphans


I mock build it on my local box with 'epel-7-x86_64' config, and it goes well, rpms are built successfully, and no issue with installing the build dependencies:

$ mock -r epel-7-x86_64 --shell

# <mock-chroot> sh-4.2# rpm -qa | grep cairo
cairo-1.14.8-2.el7.x86_64
pycairo-1.8.10-8.el7.x86_64

<mock-chroot> sh-4.2# whereis libEGL.so.1
libEGL.so: /usr/lib64/libEGL.so.1

<mock-chroot> sh-4.2# rpm -qf /usr/lib64/libEGL.so.1
mesa-libEGL-17.2.3-8.20171019.el7.x86_64

<mock-chroot> sh-4.2# whereis libGL.so.1
libGL.so: /usr/lib64/libGL.so.1

<mock-chroot> sh-4.2# rpm -qf /usr/lib64/libGL.so.1
mesa-libGL-17.2.3-8.20171019.el7.x86_64

How should I fix this?

Comment 2 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2018-11-08 17:02:16 UTC
I've got a different error for EPEL:

Getting requirements for ursa-major-0.1.1-1.el7.src
 --> help2man-1.41.1-3.el7.noarch
 --> python-devel-2.7.5-76.el7.aarch64
 --> python2-koji-1.16.1-1.el7.noarch
 --> python2-psutil-2.2.1-3.el7.aarch64
 --> python-setuptools-0.9.8-7.el7.noarch
 --> python-gobject-base-3.22.0-1.el7_4.1.aarch64
 --> pycairo-1.8.10-8.el7.aarch64
 --> python-six-1.9.0-2.el7.noarch
 --> python-requests-2.6.0-1.el7_1.noarch
 --> python-jinja2-2.7.2-2.el7.noarch
 --> python2-futures-3.0.5-1.el7.noarch
 --> pytest-2.7.0-2.el7.noarch
 --> python2-mock-1.0.1-9.el7.noarch
Error: No Package found for libmodulemd

It seems that libmodulemd was retired on EPEL7 because it was now provided by RHEL 7.6 but it doen't show up in Koji.
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libmodulemd/c/5c57b040b5e285059b736991d6e2eeb1e83e051b

Maybe isk for help en the devel mailing list.

Comment 3 Qixiang Wan 2018-11-09 03:34:04 UTC
Thanks for taking a look on this.

Right, the issue of missing mesa-libEGL and mesa-libGL has disappeared, now libmodulemd is missing from EPEL7 branch, I've ran some scratch builds and confirmed it's the only missing package now.

I've sent a mail to devel list for this issue:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/K4X6ELLNCRBEKHFRXX7KESHV4IEQQ7WZ/

Comment 4 Qixiang Wan 2018-11-10 03:19:51 UTC
The issue of missing libmodulemd has been fixed by Fedora team, scratch build on RHEL7 branch passed:

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30769260

Comment 5 Qixiang Wan 2018-11-19 06:34:12 UTC
Hi Robert,

The build issues are fixed, could you help to give it another round of review?

Comment 6 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2018-11-19 15:35:06 UTC
 - Remove the dot at the end of the summary

ursa-major.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A utility for working with module's koji tags in koji's tag inheritance.


Package 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", "Expat License". 26 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review
     /ursa-major/review-ursa-major/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.
[-]: 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
     process.
[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]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
     packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
     versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
     use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ursa-
     major-stage
[?]: 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.
[x]: %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: ursa-major-0.1.1-1.fc30.noarch.rpm
          ursa-major-stage-0.1.1-1.fc30.noarch.rpm
          ursa-major-0.1.1-1.fc30.src.rpm
ursa-major.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libmodulemd
ursa-major.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) koji's -> Kojak's
ursa-major.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A utility for working with module's koji tags in koji's tag inheritance.
ursa-major.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Usra -> Ursa, USSR
ursa-major.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US koji's -> Kojak's
ursa-major-stage.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) koji -> Kojak
ursa-major-stage.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) koji's -> Kojak's
ursa-major-stage.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A utility for working with module's koji tags in koji's tag inheritance.
ursa-major-stage.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://pagure.io/ursa-major HTTP Error 404: NOT FOUND
ursa-major-stage.noarch: W: no-documentation
ursa-major-stage.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ursa-major-stage
ursa-major.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) koji -> Kojak
ursa-major.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) koji's -> Kojak's
ursa-major.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A utility for working with module's koji tags in koji's tag inheritance.
ursa-major.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Usra -> Ursa, USSR
ursa-major.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US koji -> Kojak
ursa-major.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US koji's -> Kojak's
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 16 warnings.


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