Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/lnie/avocado-vt/fedora-31-x86_64/01112113-avocado-vt/avocado-vt.spec SRPM URL:https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/lnie/avocado-vt/fedora-31-x86_64/01112113-avocado-vt/avocado-vt-72.0-1.fc31.src.rpm Description: Avocado Virt Test is a plugin that lets you execute virt-tests with all the avocado convenience features, such as HTML report,Xunit output, among others. Fedora Account System Username:lnie
Hi my sponsor, Really thanks for your time on reviewing this request.I have rebuilt the package as there is a new release in upstream,and here is the links: Spec URL:https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/lnie/avocado-vt/fedora-31-x86_64/01118587-avocado-vt/avocado-vt.spec SRPM URL:https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/lnie/avocado-vt/fedora-31-x86_64/01118587-avocado-vt/avocado-vt-73.0-1.fc31.src.rpm
Some general comments on the spec file: - You can remove everything to do with Python 2 if you don't care about Fedora <= 30 and RHEL 7. - What is this for? %global __requires_exclude ^/usr/bin/python[23]$ - dont' -> don't - You can remove %defattr and Group completely. They have not been needed since RHEL 5. - Don't hard-code /etc/avocado, use %{_sysconfdir}/avocado instead.
Here is another issue raised by fedora-review which should be fixed (along with the things above) before I continue with the review: - 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. Note: License file LICENSE is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text Instead of %doc README.rst LICENSE use: %doc README.rst %license LICENSE
Hi Richard, Thanks a lot for your time^^ I have modified the spec file accordingly and rebuild the package,and here is the link: Spec URL:https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/lnie/avocado-vt/fedora-31-x86_64/01120425-avocado-vt/avocado-vt.spec SRPM URL:https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/lnie/avocado-vt/fedora-31-x86_64/01120425-avocado-vt/avocado-vt-73.0-1.fc31.src.rpm
Don't bother to do an update until I post the full review, but there are still a few small things to fix: (1) %dir /%{_sysconfdir}/avocado and %dir /%{_sysconfdir}/avocado/conf.d You don't need the initial "/" because %{_sysconfdir} expands to /etc, so this expands to //etc/avocado (2) Remove Group (3) dont' -> don't in comment (4) You can completely remove with_python3 as well. At the moment if the RPM isn't built on Fedora 31 / RHEL 8 then nothing gets built (notice that %build will be completely empty unless with_python3 == 1).
These Requires in the spec file are all suspicious: Requires: python3, python3-devel, [...] python3-aexpect Requires: python3-netaddr, python3-netifaces, python3-simplejson You shouldn't depend on python3-devel anyway, and the other ones will be picked up automatically by RPM. Try removing these lines and see what the automatically generated Requires look like in the final RPM. This one is OK: "Requires: python3-avocado >= 51.0" because it's enforcing a minimum version. rpmlint complains that several Python libraries have #!/usr/bin/python at the top of them, which is likely to be wrong (unless these scripts are intended to be run as separate programs, in which case they are in the wrong directory and have the wrong permissions too). You may need to use sed or work with upstream to get these fixed: python3-avocado-vt.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/virttest/cartesian_config.py 644 /usr/bin/python python3-avocado-vt.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/virttest/data_dir.py 644 /usr/bin/python python3-avocado-vt.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/virttest/postprocess_iozone.py 644 /usr/bin/python python3-avocado-vt.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/virttest/remote_commander/messenger.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-avocado-vt.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/virttest/remote_commander/remote_master.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-avocado-vt.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/virttest/remote_commander/remote_runner.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-avocado-vt.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/virttest/rss_client.py 644 /usr/bin/python python3-avocado-vt.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/virttest/staging/utils_cgroup.py 644 /usr/bin/python python3-avocado-vt.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/virttest/step_editor.py 644 /usr/bin/python python3-avocado-vt.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/virttest/version.py 644 /usr/bin/python rpmlint complains about these files using #!/usr/bin/env: python3-avocado-vt.noarch: E: env-script-interpreter /usr/share/avocado-plugins-vt/shared/deps/run_autotest/boottool.py /usr/bin/env python python3-avocado-vt.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/avocado-plugins-vt/shared/scripts/duplicate_pages.py 644 /usr/bin/python I notice that you're disabling RPM #! mangling (%global __brp_mangle_shebangs_exclude_from) but it's unclear why you're doing that? rpmlint complains that there are C/C++ source files in the package, is there a reason for this? python3-avocado-vt.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/virttest/passfd.c python3-avocado-vt.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/avocado-plugins-vt/shared/deps/finish/finish.cpp python3-avocado-vt.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/avocado-plugins-vt/shared/deps/rss/rss.cpp python3-avocado-vt.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/avocado-plugins-vt/shared/deps/rss/rss6.cpp python3-avocado-vt.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/avocado-plugins-vt/shared/scripts/pipetest.c
Hi Richard, I have contacted the upstream maintainer,and here is what he said about the #!/usr/bin/python and /usr/bin/env python: There are indeed a number of files that are libraries, and at the same time provide some level of "script" (aka command-line utilities) capabilities... I have modified the code as his suggest and sent a PR in upstream >I notice that you're disabling RPM #! mangling (%global __brp_mangle_shebangs_exclude_from)but it's unclear why you're doing that? The point here is that these scripts will be copied to guest VM instances, which may be running Operating Systems that can haveeither Python 2 or Python 3, but it's impossible to know for sure at packaging time. > rpmlint complains that there are C/C++ source files in the package, is there a reason for this? Here is his reply: The base issue is that some functionality could not be implemented in pure Python, but still the packaging was kept "noarch" and relying on Avocado-VT's own handling of source code compilation. Ideally, this should be done at build time, in either or both setup.py and the spec file.For instance, virttest/passfd.py has code to compile passfd.c "on the go". This is for historical reasons, but it should probably be done on setup.py instead. Also notice that in the specific case of passfd.c, this is only required on Python 2 (because of a Python 2 limitation). For other files, such as finish.cpp, I expect that these days it could be replaced by some Windows script that would not need a previous compilation. This is probably also an upstream-able issue. Anyway,I was told that they are used by some special cases which test windows guest. Those executable files in those folders are installed in windows guest for some special purpose, maybe I can remove it in Pagure(I have created a mirror of avocado-vt project in Pagure) if needed.
Could you upload a new package with at least the things that you can fix from comment 5 and comment 6 fixed?
When you have scripts with shebangs copied onto guest VM instances there are several options, sorted "the best first" based on my opinion: 1. create the shebangs upon copying, based on some settings about the VM or other options 2. keep the files in the package as nonexecutables, add the executable bit after copying 3. disable the shebangs check/mangling for certain files, but be very verbose about what's going on in the comment - the current comment is not clear enough on why nor it makes any sense to me ---------------- This is forbidden, pygobject2 is Python 2: Requires: pygobject2 ---------------- This is unnecessary: Requires: python3 And this is suspicious: Requires: python3-devel ---------------- This is outdated: %{__python3} setup.py build -> use %py3_build instead %{__python3} setup.py install --root %{buildroot} --skip-build -> use %py3_install instead
(In reply to Richard W.M. Jones from comment #8) > Could you upload a new package with at least the things that you can > fix from comment 5 and comment 6 fixed? Hi Richard, Sure,here is the link: SRPM:https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/lnie/avocado-vt/fedora-31-x86_64/01123543-avocado-vt/avocado-vt-73.0-1.fc31.src.rpm Spec file:https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/lnie/avocado-vt/fedora-31-x86_64/01123543-avocado-vt/avocado-vt.spec
Hi Miro, Thanks for your review,I have modified the spec file accordingly except the shebang thing, as I think I may need ask help from the upstream maintainer about that.
Thanks. You can do option 3. in the meantime, but open an upstream discussion about options 1/2. I've noticed onw more thing. There is no "main package", only the python3- subpackage. The top-level requires: Requires: python3-six Requires: python3-imaging Requires: autotest-framework, xz, tcpdump, iproute, iputils, gcc, glibc-headers, nc, git Requires: attr Requires: policycoreutils-python-utils Requires: gstreamer1-plugins-good ...are applied to no output.
Hi Miro, Got it and thanks,I will upload a new package accordingly after I get new feedback from Richard.
I didn't spot that the Requires lines in fact have no effect because they apply to the non-existent main package, but that just makes them even more suspicious. They must have been added for a reason though, so I think you need to ask Cleber and/or the upstream developers what they are for and whether they should be BuildRequires or apply to the python3 subpackage.
Hi, I have sent an email to Cleber last Wednesday,but hasn't received any reply,maybe he is too busy to handle this thing? Could we leave the top-level requires there?
Well, no, the purpose of review is to review and fix all these things. Let's see what Cleber says.
(In reply to lnie from comment #15) > Could we leave the top-level requires there? No. They are broken. You question mostly could be translated as: Could we have a broken package approved?
Hi, Sorry for the so long delay.Cleber agrees that the top-level requires should be moved to subpackage.I have moved them there and cleaned up a bit,and here is the new build: SRPM:https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lnie/avocado-vt/fedora-31-x86_64/01239257-avocado-vt/avocado-vt-75.0-1.fc31.src.rpm SPEC:https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lnie/avocado-vt/fedora-31-x86_64/01239257-avocado-vt/avocado-vt.spec I didn't remove the python3-devel requires,as the passfd.c is still there and very needed by the test.I will try to work on removing the c file with code modified accordingly，if we must have python3-devel requires removed.
This is still problematic because there are still multiple issues that haven't been addressed. Perhaps a Copr repo is a better place for this package to live, and it seems like you are already doing Copr builds. Anyway I am unassigning myself from this review.
Hi Richard, I really feel very sorry for having made you and seeing you quit this review process. If I may,would you please give me some time and tell me where the multiple issues are? I will work on them,and upload a new built.Though I hope you can change your decision then, I can understand if it's still the same,and thanks for your time anyway. I feel so close and excited(turns out too excited) to become a fedora package maintainer, when I had installed the rpm package,and it works well with the f31 config file I added, so I want to try one more time,if I may.Besides,virt-QE,who is the main consumer of avocado-vt, use setuptools and pip to install it,which is not,IMO,as convenient as one yum install command. I'd like to do a little contribution to change that,if it's not way hard.
I would suggest reading back over all the comments in this bug to ensure that everything mentioned has been fixed. Then run the 'fedora-review' program yourself on the package, as that will find other issues. Just because I've untaken this bug doesn't mean that you can't find someone else in the Fedora community who could review it, I simply don't have the time at the moment, so best of luck.
Hi Richard, Thanks for your very helpful information and reply.I have ran 'fedora-review' on avocado-vt,and made some modifications accordingly,there are only two warning messages complaining virt spelling-error,which is obviously a wrong alert,now^^ I have modified the code to safely remove python3-devel requires and c/c++ files. Thanks to Cleber's hint,I have replaced the function provided by passfd.c with new function of python3's socket. Here is the links of the new built: SRPM:https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lnie/avocado-vt/fedora-31-x86_64/01284117-avocado-vt/avocado-vt-76.0-1.fc31.src.rpm SPEC:https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lnie/avocado-vt/fedora-31-x86_64/01284117-avocado-vt/avocado-vt.spec Hi Miro, Would you please spare some time to review this package?Thanks a lot:)
- Please split your BR and RR one per line - Don't use macros starting with __, they are for rpm private use: %install mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/avocado/conf.d %py3_install mv %{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib}/avocado_vt/conf.d/* %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/avocado/conf.d - The changelog entry must match the version-release in the header. I suggest you cut down the changelog prior to Fedora import. And add your entry with your name and email.
Hi Robert, Thanks a lot for your review,and here are the new links: SRPM:https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lnie/avocado-vt/fedora-31-x86_64/01315215-avocado-vt/avocado-vt-77.0-1.fc31.src.rpm SPEC:https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lnie/avocado-vt/fedora-31-x86_64/01315215-avocado-vt/avocado-vt.spec
Package is not installable: DEBUG util.py:600: Error: DEBUG util.py:600: Problem: conflicting requests DEBUG util.py:600: - nothing provides python3.8dist(aexpect) needed by python3-avocado-vt-77.0-1.fc33.noarch DEBUG util.py:600: - nothing provides python3-avocado >= 51.0 needed by python3-avocado-vt-77.0-1.fc33.noarch DEBUG util.py:600: - nothing provides python3.8dist(avocado-framework) >= 68 needed by python3-avocado-vt-77.0-1.fc33.noarch DEBUG util.py:602: (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages or '--nobest' to use not only best candidate packages) - Own these directories: [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/avocado-plugins-vt/backends, /usr/share/avocado-plugins-vt/shared, /usr/share/avocado-plugins- vt/test-providers.d, /usr/share/avocado-plugins-vt Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ ===== 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", "GNU General Public License (v2) GNU Lesser General Public License", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GNU General Public License", "GPL (v2)". 820 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/avocado- vt/review-avocado-vt/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/avocado-plugins-vt/backends, /usr/share/avocado-plugins-vt/shared, /usr/share/avocado-plugins- vt/test-providers.d, /usr/share/avocado-plugins-vt [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 10240 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]: 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 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 2.1 starting (python version = 3.8.2)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins INFO: Signal handler active Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start: cleaning package manager metadata Finish: cleaning package manager metadata INFO: enabled ccache INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 2.1 INFO: Mock Version: 2.1 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/bob/packaging/review/avocado-vt/review-avocado-vt/results/python3-avocado-vt-77.0-1.fc33.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/f33-candidate-x86_64/root/ --releasever 33 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk install /home/bob/packaging/review/avocado-vt/review-avocado-vt/results/python3-avocado-vt-77.0-1.fc33.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-avocado-vt-77.0-1.fc33.noarch.rpm avocado-vt-77.0-1.fc33.src.rpm python3-avocado-vt.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virt -> dirt, girt, vi rt avocado-vt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virt -> dirt, girt, vi rt 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Hi Robert, We see conflicting requests problem because default avocado stream is banned on 32 and rawhide. I have checked,we will be able to install avocado-vt package successfully on Rawhide if we do "dnf module enable avocado:latest -y" first.
OK, still need to own these dirs thingie.
Hi Robert, Here is the new links: SRPM:https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lnie/avocado-vt/fedora-31-x86_64/01321495-avocado-vt/avocado-vt-77.0-1.fc31.src.rpm SPEC:https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lnie/avocado-vt/fedora-31-x86_64/01321495-avocado-vt/avocado-vt.spec Could I upload a new 77.0 tar ball after everything is okay(hopefully,the own-dir thing is the last?^^)? As I need pagure admin's help to remove the old one.
Package approved.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/avocado-vt
FEDORA-2020-16b0770846 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-16b0770846
FEDORA-2020-16b0770846 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-16b0770846 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-16b0770846 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-16b0770846 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
(In reply to lnie from comment #26) > Hi Robert, > > We see conflicting requests problem because default avocado stream is > banned on 32 and rawhide. > I have checked,we will be able to install avocado-vt package successfully > on Rawhide if we do "dnf module enable avocado:latest -y" first. I don't think this package should have passed review without this being resolved first. It is FTI out of the box (#1830658).