Bug 1789854 - Review Request: ServiceReport - a tool to validate and repair system configuration for specific purposes
Summary: Review Request: ServiceReport - a tool to validate and repair system configur...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: 32
Hardware: ppc64le
OS: Linux
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 1860811
Blocks: PPCTracker 1725784 1853217
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2020-01-10 15:00 UTC by IBM Bug Proxy
Modified: 2020-08-13 09:18 UTC (History)
10 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2020-08-13 09:18:45 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)
ServiceReport Source RPM package. (33.99 KB, application/x-rpm)
2020-05-01 07:41 UTC, Sourabh Jain
no flags Details
ServiceReport Spec file. (1.31 KB, text/x-rpm-spec)
2020-05-01 07:42 UTC, Sourabh Jain
no flags Details


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
IBM Linux Technology Center 183161 0 None None None 2020-01-10 15:00:39 UTC

Description IBM Bug Proxy 2020-01-10 15:00:27 UTC

Comment 1 IBM Bug Proxy 2020-01-10 15:00:34 UTC
Our observation from Enterprise Linux testing and customer issues in the recent past has been that most customers have challenges in setting up their Linux systems for First Failure Data Capture(FFDC). In some cases, log gathering packages aren't installed, in some, the requisite daemons for the platform are neither installed or configured properly. The most apparent problem is the incorrect configuration of kdump/fadump, where insufficient memory reservation causes OOM and therefore a failure in capturing the dump.

To alleviate these issues, we have come up with a python plugin based framework called ServiceReport. This tool is integrated with Systemd to run on boot. ServiceReport runs in two modes: validate and repair. By default, ServiceReport runs in the validate mode - depending on the platform it is run on, it will determine what necessary packages and daemons are needed for log collection and normal system run. It will then check if those are installed and configured to run as needed. If it isn't, ServiceReport will log errors into syslog and on the console so that the sysadmin can take necessary action.

In the repair phase, subject to the system configured to reach the appropriate repositories, ServiceReport will fix issues found in the validate phase. It will also tweak the boot commandline and refresh the bootloader settings for a successful dump, trigger distro specified steps for regenerating the initramfs, etc. ServiceReport also provides a convenient dummy trigger to test the dump configuration.

The tool is available at:
https://github.com/linux-ras/ServiceReport

Comment 2 Dan Horák 2020-01-10 16:07:54 UTC
This will need a package owner and follow https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process

Comment 3 Ben Cotton 2020-02-11 17:36:25 UTC
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 32 development cycle.
Changing version to 32.

Comment 4 IBM Bug Proxy 2020-02-17 04:00:23 UTC
------- Comment From sjain014.com 2020-02-16 22:57 EDT-------
Hello,

As our distro compatible build infrastructure is now in place, we will soon open a new package request for ServiceReport on the Fedora forum.

Thanks,
Sourabh Jain

Comment 5 Sourabh Jain 2020-05-01 07:41:19 UTC
Created attachment 1683603 [details]
ServiceReport Source RPM package.

Comment 6 Sourabh Jain 2020-05-01 07:42:02 UTC
Created attachment 1683604 [details]
ServiceReport Spec file.

Comment 7 Sourabh Jain 2020-05-01 07:44:09 UTC
I have attached the SRPM and SPEC file of ServiceReport.

Please let me know if any changes are required.

Thanks,
Sourabh Jain

Comment 8 Sourabh Jain 2020-05-01 07:44:33 UTC
I have attached the SRPM and SPEC file of ServiceReport.

Please review it and let me know if any changes are required.

Thanks,
Sourabh Jain

Comment 9 Vasant Hegde 2020-05-01 10:26:58 UTC
I have grabbed attached specfile and rpm. I have done initial review of the package. This shouldn't be considered as final review.


Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
- Dist tag is present.
- systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and
  systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files.
  Note: Systemd service file(s) in ServiceReport
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets

Use systemd_* syntax.


===== 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]: 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.
[?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated". 31 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in
     servicereport/ServiceReport/licensecheck.txt
[?]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
     /usr/lib/python3.8(python3-libs), /usr/lib/python3.8/site-
     packages(solarwolf, flatpak-runtime-config, python3-flask-whooshee,
     python3-libs, python-pysword, nut-client), /usr/lib/systemd(systemd),
     /usr/lib/systemd/system(389-ds-base, openqa-worker, plymouth, systemd)
[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

Please fix this.

[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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 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]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[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.
[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]: 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:
[!]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
     Note: Found : Vendor: IBM Corp.
     See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
     guidelines/#_tags_and_sections

Please fix this.

[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.
[?]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[ ]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
     Note: %define requiring justification: %define name ServiceReport,
     %define version 2.2.1, %define release 1, %define python python3,
     %define debug_package %{nil}

Please fix this.

[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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.

===== 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.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: ServiceReport-2.2.1-1.x86_64.rpm
          ServiceReport-2.2.1-1.src.rpm
ServiceReport.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C ServiceReport is a python based tool that investigates the incorrect First Failure Data
ServiceReport.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.2.1 ['2.2.1-1', '2.2.1-1']
ServiceReport.x86_64: E: no-binary
ServiceReport.src: E: description-line-too-long C ServiceReport is a python based tool that investigates the incorrect First Failure Data
ServiceReport.src:45: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/*
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 1 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
ServiceReport.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C ServiceReport is a python based tool that investigates the incorrect First Failure Data
ServiceReport.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.2.1 ['2.2.1-1', '2.2.1-1']
ServiceReport.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/linux-ras/ServiceReport <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
ServiceReport.x86_64: E: no-binary
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/linux-ras/ServiceReport/archive/v2.2.1/ServiceReport-2.2.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 9f2951a0a33fd9aa037657015461d1c720c94f7c6703d5c86bc519dc86e9104a
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9f2951a0a33fd9aa037657015461d1c720c94f7c6703d5c86bc519dc86e9104a


Requires
--------
ServiceReport (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    /usr/bin/python3
    python3
    systemd



Provides
--------
ServiceReport:
    ServiceReport
    ServiceReport(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --rpm-spec -n ServiceReport-2.2.1-1.src.rpm
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic
Disabled plugins: PHP, Ocaml, SugarActivity, R, Java, C/C++, fonts, Perl, Haskell
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH


-Vasant

Comment 10 Kevin Fenzi 2020-05-01 15:45:56 UTC
Moving to the package review component so reviewers can see it.

Comment 11 Sourabh Jain 2020-05-08 09:54:14 UTC
Hello,

Thanks, Vasant for reviewing the source rpm and SPEC file.

I have made a couple of changes in the SPEC file to get rid
of reported issues.

The v2 SPEC file and SRC RPM are uploaded here:
SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sourabhjains/ServiceReport/fedora-31-x86_64/01372837-ServiceReport/ServiceReport.spec
SRC RPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sourabhjains/ServiceReport/fedora-31-x86_64/01372837-ServiceReport/ServiceReport-2.2.1-1.src.rpm

ChangeLog:
BuildArch tag is changed to noarch.
Description text is now under 80 char
%systemd_post tag is used instead of direct systemctl command.
Removed vendor tag from SPEC file.
All the rpmlint errors and warnings are handled by adding appropriate macros.

Please let me know if any changes required in SPEC file.

Best,
Sourabh Jain

Comment 12 Susi Lehtola 2020-06-18 20:00:30 UTC
Sourabh: SPEC and SRPM give 404 error.

Comment 13 IBM Bug Proxy 2020-06-19 05:00:48 UTC
------- Comment From sjain014.com 2020-06-19 00:52 EDT-------
Hello Team,

(In reply to comment #17)
> Sourabh: SPEC and SRPM give 404 error.

I am not sure why the SPEC file and Source RPM file has been removed from the corp portal. I guess the corp portal removes all files belongs to builds after certain days.

The below link contains a fresh build of ServiceReport on the corp portal. It includes SPEC file and Source RPMs.

https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sourabhjains/ServiceReport/fedora-31-x86_64/01486459-ServiceReport/

Note: added a new BuildRequires[: %{python}-devel] tag in the SPEC file to handle the missing python3_sitelib macro error.

Comment 14 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2020-06-27 20:21:01 UTC
- Don't use %define but %global:

%define name ServiceReport
%define version 2.2.1
%define release 1

 And you shouldn't redefine name, version and release, use the header field for that

 - Group: is not used in Fedora

 - No:

%define debug_package %{nil}

 Instead make you package noarch since it's Python stuff:

BuildArch: noarch

 - Use Python macros: see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_macros

%{python} setup.py build → %py3_build

%{python} setup.py install --root=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT → %py3_install


 - Not needed: %defattr(-,root,root)

 - Use macros for directories:

/usr/share/man → %{_mandir}

/usr/lib/systemd/system/ → %{_unitdir}

 - Man pages are not to be installed with %doc:

%{_mandir}/man8/*

 - Not needed:

Requires: %{python} systemd

 - BR systemd-rpm-macros instead of systemd (if you need EPEL7 support put it behind a condition)

 - Some systemd scriptles are missing: see: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_systemd

%post
%systemd_post servicereport.service

%preun
%systemd_preun servicereport.service

%postun
%systemd_postun_with_restart servicereport.service

 - Not needed: %doc /usr/share/doc/*, install the README.md with:

%doc README.md

 - You should provide a COPYING file and install it with %license in %files:

%license COPYING

 - # By default python 3 is used to build the package.

Only Python 3 is available for Fedora 32 and above. If you're planning EPEL7 and Python2, use conditionals, for example

%if 0%{?fedora} || 0%{?rhel} >= 7
%bcond_with    python2
%bcond_without python3
%else
%bcond_with    python3
%bcond_without python2
%endif

although I'd recommend to stick with Python3

Comment 15 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2020-06-27 20:24:31 UTC
Also the reporter of the bug (with their bugzilla email) must be the one to request the repository, Using bugproxy.com instead of a real FAS account will prevent the script to request a repo to work.

Comment 16 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2020-06-27 20:27:44 UTC
I.e. you should open a new bug as jainsourabh 'Sourabh Jain' <sourabhjain.com> and close this one as duplicate because it won't go anywhere. You'll need a sponsor to become a member of the packager group.

Comment 17 IBM Bug Proxy 2020-07-01 07:10:39 UTC
------- Comment From sjain014.com 2020-07-01 03:01 EDT-------
Hello Team,

Thanks for the review.

I will open a new BUG and will post the updated SPEC file there.

(In reply to comment #19)
> - Don't use %define but %global:
>
> %define name ServiceReport
> %define version 2.2.1
> %define release 1

Comment 18 IBM Bug Proxy 2020-07-02 10:21:58 UTC
------- Comment From sjain014.com 2020-07-02 06:16 EDT-------
Hello Team,

As suggested in the previous comment I have opened a new BZ with 'Sourabh Jain' <sourabhjain.com> ID on https://bugzilla.redhat.com.

Also addressed the comments on the SPEC file and posted the updated SPEC on the new BZ.

New BZ link: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1853217

Comment 19 Hanns-Joachim Uhl 2020-08-13 09:18:45 UTC
fyi ... with
LTC bug 187118 - RH1860811- Fedora - Review Request: ServiceReport - a tool to validate and repair system configuration for specific purposes
now included for Fedora 33
I am closing this Red Hat bugzilla now ...


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