Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/slp/virtiofsd/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04415557-virtiofsd/virtiofsd.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/slp/virtiofsd/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04415557-virtiofsd/virtiofsd-1.2.0-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: Virtio-fs vhost-user device daemon (Rust version) Fedora Account System Username: slp
Koji build that can be used as a reference: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=87121461
Hi Sergio, any reason to limit this to x86_64 and aarch64 and not %{rust_arches} or all available arches? Would be good to mention that in the spec.
(In reply to Lokesh Mandvekar from comment #2) > Hi Sergio, any reason to limit this to x86_64 and aarch64 and not > %{rust_arches} or all available arches? Would be good to mention that in the > spec. Some of our deps (i.e. vm-memory) are only available on x86_64, aarch64 and ppc64le while others (i.e. virtio-queue) only support x86_64, aarch64 and s390x. This restricts us to the intersection of those sets, x86_64 and aarch64. I *think* some of those limitations will be raised soon(ish), so we should be able to support pretty much every arch in the near future. I've just generated a new COPR build with the updated specfile: - https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/slp/virtiofsd/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04416210-virtiofsd/virtiofsd.spec - https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/slp/virtiofsd/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04416210-virtiofsd/virtiofsd-1.2.0-1.fc37.src.rpm
This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: 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", "BSD 3-Clause License", "Apache License 2.0". 29 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/lsm5/fedora- review/virtiofsd/2086523-virtiofsd/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/qemu/vhost-user [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/qemu/vhost-user, /usr/share/qemu [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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 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]: 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]: 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: [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/virtiofsd/1.2.0/download#/virtiofsd-1.2.0.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cb427bf0312c07f3930721bdab85e181f3466125c7c4258a6b2c9ff70e1c680c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cb427bf0312c07f3930721bdab85e181f3466125c7c4258a6b2c9ff70e1c680c Requires -------- virtiofsd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcap-ng.so.0()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libseccomp.so.2()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) virtiofsd-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): virtiofsd-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- virtiofsd: vhostuser-backend(fs) virtiofsd virtiofsd(x86-64) virtiofsd-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) virtiofsd-debuginfo virtiofsd-debuginfo(x86-64) virtiofsd-debugsource: virtiofsd-debugsource virtiofsd-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2086523 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Java, PHP, Haskell, R, fonts, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Pasting only the pending manual review part below.. Sergio, please fix the one TODO and we should be good to go. ===== 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", "BSD 3-Clause License", "Apache License 2.0". 29 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/lsm5/fedora- review/virtiofsd/2086523-virtiofsd/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/qemu/vhost-user [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/qemu/vhost-user, /usr/share/qemu TODO: Need to own dirs %{_datadir}/qemu and %{_datadir}/qemu/vhost-user [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. rpmautospec might make life easier, but your call. [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. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: 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. [-]: 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 ===== 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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
(In reply to Lokesh Mandvekar from comment #5) > Pasting only the pending manual review part below.. > > Sergio, please fix the one TODO and we should be good to go. > > ===== 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", > "BSD 3-Clause License", "Apache License 2.0". 29 files have unknown > license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/lsm5/fedora- > review/virtiofsd/2086523-virtiofsd/licensecheck.txt > [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown > must be documented in the spec. > [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > Note: No known owner of /usr/share/qemu/vhost-user > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/qemu/vhost-user, > /usr/share/qemu > > TODO: Need to own dirs %{_datadir}/qemu and %{_datadir}/qemu/vhost-user Good catch. I was planning to include "qemu-common" as a dependency, but I've just checked its spec and it doesn't declare the ownership either. I've created a BZ (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2086836) to the "qemu-common" package and updated the specfile of virtiofsd to depend on it. New COPR build: - https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/slp/virtiofsd/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04416518-virtiofsd/virtiofsd.spec - https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/slp/virtiofsd/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04416518-virtiofsd/virtiofsd-1.2.0-1.fc37.src.rpm
alright, LGTM. Package approved given that the fixes need to go into Bug 2086836 (set as blocker for this bug). So, no change required per https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_and_directory_ownership .
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/virtiofsd
The package is already on rawhide's compose. Thanks Lokesh and Tomas!