Just few notes for now:

- issue from fedora-review: "File listed twice: /usr/share/doc/nvme-stas", I'm not sure why but probably the combination of "%doc README.md" and "%doc %{_pkgdocdir}"
- "staslib/glibudev.py" is licensed under LGPL but if I understand it correctly the result still could be under ASL 2.0 so the "Licence:" field in spec should be correct
- if "staslib" is meant to be a public Python API it should be packaged in a separate package, if it is just an internal library for the binary, it should be OK to have it in the nvme-stas package

Tomas, has the upstream issue: https://github.com/linux-nvme/nvme-stas/issues/46 been resolved yet?

Do we need a separate python-package for nvmestas?

(In reply to John Meneghini from comment #2)
> Tomas, has the upstream issue:
> https://github.com/linux-nvme/nvme-stas/issues/46 been resolved yet?

From packaging perspective there's no issue for Fedora and RHEL. I made nvme-stas explicitly requiring nvme-cli (that in turn pulls libnvme) for the /etc/nvme directory ownership and /etc/nvme/hostnqn and /etc/nvme/hostid that should be generated and owned by nvme-cli. These changes and packaging is currently underway in Fedora (see related bug 2065886 and bug 1827581).

As far as python3-nvme -> python3-libnvme package rename, it was also only downstream specific packaging. Changes should be in F36 and rawhide by now.
 
> Do we need a separate python-package for nvmestas?
No, I don't think so. The "staslib" module looks internal, haven't found any indication that it's supposed to be offerred for reuse in public.


I'll post updated nvme-stas spec file soon, need to finish libnvme and nvme-cli packaging first.

One more question:

> Description: Provides a NVMe over Fabrics Central Discovery Controller (CDC) client for Linux, consisting of two daemons: stafd (STorage Appliance Finder)
> and stacd (STorage Appliance Connector).

Is there any way we can deliver this functionality in two separate packages?

Some customer may want to install and run the stafd (STorage Appliance Finder) without the stacd (STorage Appliance Connector).

See bz2026447

(In reply to John Meneghini from comment #4)
> Is there any way we can deliver this functionality in two separate packages?
> 
> Some customer may want to install and run the stafd (STorage Appliance
> Finder) without the stacd (STorage Appliance Connector).
> 
> See bz2026447

Interesting, I'll have a look. The ultimate question might also be potential inclusion of some of the functionality in initramfs (personally hoping that it will never happen), but we can be prepared at that moment.

Also FYI https://github.com/linux-nvme/nvme-stas/issues/40#issuecomment-1080774307

So if we decide to go the split packaging way, my proposed packaging layout might look like this:
 - python3-staslib: the core module with most of the functionality
 - nvme-stas-stafd: stafctl, stafd.service, stafd
 - nvme-stas-stacd: stacctl, stacd.service, stacd  (will require nvme-stas-stafd)

Both the daemon packages contain minimal amount of code, not sure if this is worth the split from maintenance perspective - any savings would be minimal. No savings on dependencies either as most of the requirements would come from the base python3-staslib module.

(In reply to Vojtech Trefny from comment #1)
> Just few notes for now:
> 
> - issue from fedora-review: "File listed twice: /usr/share/doc/nvme-stas",
> I'm not sure why but probably the combination of "%doc README.md" and "%doc
> %{_pkgdocdir}"

Looks like a noise, my attempt to use only single %doc ends up with

RPM build errors:
    Can't mix special %doc with other forms: /usr/share/doc/nvme-stas


> - "staslib/glibudev.py" is licensed under LGPL but if I understand it
> correctly the result still could be under ASL 2.0 so the "Licence:" field in
> spec should be correct

Yeah, I think it's the Lesser difference.

> - if "staslib" is meant to be a public Python API it should be packaged in a
> separate package, if it is just an internal library for the binary, it
> should be OK to have it in the nvme-stas package

See comment 6, otherwise I would keep it internal.


Updated build, spec file synced with upstream:
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@storage/udisks-daily/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04083703-nvme-stas/nvme-stas.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@storage/udisks-daily/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04083703-nvme-stas/nvme-stas-1.0~rc7-1.fc37.src.rpm

Surprisingly the final upstream version was released yesterday.

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@storage/udisks-daily/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04084910-nvme-stas/nvme-stas.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@storage/udisks-daily/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04084910-nvme-stas/nvme-stas-1.0-1.fc37.src.rpm

Okay, let's go with the current monolithic layout, any potential split will need to be brought upstream first.

Updated spec file with minor fixes:

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@storage/udisks-daily/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/04282700-nvme-stas/nvme-stas.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@storage/udisks-daily/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/04282700-nvme-stas/nvme-stas-1.0-1.fc37.src.rpm

Submitted https://github.com/linux-nvme/nvme-stas/issues/102 upstream for the Python sitelib issue.

Latest SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@storage/udisks-daily/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/04282700-nvme-stas/nvme-stas-1.0-1.fc37.src.rpm

===== 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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0",
     "Apache License 2.0", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or
     later". 20 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
     in /home/vtrefny/Stažené/nvme-stas/licensecheck.txt
[X]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/dbus-1/system.d,
     /usr/share/dbus-1
[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.
[X]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[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 143360 bytes in 16 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 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]: 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]: 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 nvme-stas
[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]: 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

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nvme-stas

FEDORA-2022-6e7d528933 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-6e7d528933

FEDORA-2022-6e7d528933 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-6e7d528933 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-6e7d528933

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2022-6e7d528933 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.