Bug 2248518 - Review Request: anaconda-webui - This package contains a cockpit based user interface for the Anaconda installer
Summary: Review Request: anaconda-webui - This package contains a cockpit based user i...
Keywords:
Status: ASSIGNED
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Simon de Vlieger
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: https://github.com/rhinstaller/%{name}
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2023-11-07 13:59 UTC by Katerina Koukiou
Modified: 2023-11-16 13:30 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:
Type: ---
Embargoed:
cmdr: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6608102 to 6632109 (2.43 KB, patch)
2023-11-14 10:21 UTC, Fedora Review Service
no flags Details | Diff
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6632109 to 6646683 (681 bytes, patch)
2023-11-16 09:32 UTC, Fedora Review Service
no flags Details | Diff

Description Katerina Koukiou 2023-11-07 13:59:00 UTC
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/%40rhinstaller/Anaconda-webui/srpm-builds/06607527/anaconda-webui.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/%40rhinstaller/Anaconda-webui/srpm-builds/06607527/anaconda-webui-0-1.src.rpm
Description: Anaconda installer Web interface
Fedora Account System Username:kkoukiou

This package is split out from anaconda [1] 

The spec file and srpm were created from packit, that will be also used for the Fedora releases. The template spec file can be found here in the project's repo. [2]

[1] https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda/
[2] https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda-webui/blob/main/packaging/anaconda-webui.spec.in

Comment 1 Fedora Review Service 2023-11-07 15:55:06 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6608102
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2248518-anaconda-webui/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06608102-anaconda-webui/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 2 Fabio Valentini 2023-11-08 13:23:58 UTC
> The spec file and srpm were created from packit, that will be also used for the Fedora releases.
> The template spec file can be found here in the project's repo. [2]

Just as a reminder for the person who will review this package: This is explicitly against the Packaging Guidelines.
c.f. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_spec_maintenance_and_canonicity

Comment 3 Katerina Koukiou 2023-11-08 13:38:20 UTC
@Fabio the way we will utilize packit for creating the Fedora dist-git PRs is aligning with the guidelines you sent in the link above.
Packit creates Pull Requests with the suggested changes to the spec file in the Fedora Package sources repository for anaconda-webui, it's up to the maintainers of the package to merge them or not. It will not override any changes made by other maintainers. See https://packit.dev/docs/fedora-releases-guide#update-dist-git-content

Comment 4 Fabio Valentini 2023-11-08 13:46:04 UTC
> The spec file and srpm were created from packit, that will be also used for the Fedora releases.
> The template spec file can be found here in the project's repo. [2]

This statement was unclear to that point, so thank you for the clarification.

Comment 5 Simon de Vlieger 2023-11-13 09:57:33 UTC
I've gone through the package, note that this is one of my first reviews so I'd like to request another
packager to also perform a review if necessary.

- Should the package contain a desktop file to start anaconda-webui or will this be done by
  anaconda-core (and is that permissible?).
- Should the package obsolete/conflict anaconda-webui the subpackage for versions older than before
  the split? I'm unsure how a package split-out works in this regard.
- Many folders are owned by multiple packages, I marked this as a fail but it's likely that this is
  resolved as soon as the split happens.
- It seems you'd need to use `%global` instead of `%define`.
- Should this package contain a `%check`?


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", "GNU Lesser General Public License,
     Version 2.1", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "*No
     copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "MIT
     License", "BSD 0-Clause License and/or GNU Lesser General Public
     License v2.1 or later and/or MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT
     License". 362 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/user/Packaging/Review/2248518-anaconda-
     webui/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/anaconda/firefox-
     theme(anaconda-webui, anaconda-core), /usr/share/anaconda/firefox-
     theme/default(anaconda-webui, anaconda-core),
     /usr/share/anaconda/firefox-theme/default/chrome(anaconda-webui,
     anaconda-core), /usr/share/anaconda/firefox-theme/live(anaconda-webui,
     anaconda-core), /usr/share/anaconda/firefox-
     theme/live/chrome(anaconda-webui, anaconda-core)
[?]: 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.
[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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 1054 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[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.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
     Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[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.
[!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
     Note: %define requiring justification: %define anacondacorever 40.9,
     %define cockpitver 275
[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]: SourceX is a working URL.

===== 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: anaconda-webui-0-1.fc40.noarch.rpm
          anaconda-webui-0-1.fc40.src.rpm
================================== rpmlint session starts =================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpeeas_5c1')]
checks: 31, packages: 2

anaconda-webui.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/cockpit/anaconda-webui/index.css.LEGAL.txt
anaconda-webui.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/licenses/anaconda-webui/index.css.LEGAL.txt
anaconda-webui.noarch: E: no-changelogname-tag
anaconda-webui.src: E: no-changelogname-tag
anaconda-webui.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: anaconda-webui-0.tar.xz
anaconda-webui.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/anaconda-webui/index.js.LEGAL.txt /usr/share/cockpit/anaconda-webui/index.js.LEGAL.txt
anaconda-webui.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/cockpit/anaconda-webui/logo.svg ../../pixmaps/fedora-logo-sprite.svg
=== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 3 warnings, 4 badness; has taken 0.2 s ==




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 1

anaconda-webui.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/cockpit/anaconda-webui/index.css.LEGAL.txt
anaconda-webui.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/licenses/anaconda-webui/index.css.LEGAL.txt
anaconda-webui.noarch: E: no-changelogname-tag
anaconda-webui.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/anaconda-webui/index.js.LEGAL.txt /usr/share/cockpit/anaconda-webui/index.js.LEGAL.txt
anaconda-webui.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/cockpit/anaconda-webui/logo.svg ../../pixmaps/fedora-logo-sprite.svg
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 2 warnings, 3 badness; has taken 0.1 s



Requires
--------
anaconda-webui (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/bash
    anaconda-core
    cockpit-bridge
    cockpit-ws



Provides
--------
anaconda-webui:
    anaconda-webui
    bundled(npm(@patternfly/patternfly))
    bundled(npm(@patternfly/react-core))
    bundled(npm(@patternfly/react-icons))
    bundled(npm(@patternfly/react-log-viewer))
    bundled(npm(@patternfly/react-styles))
    bundled(npm(@patternfly/react-table))
    bundled(npm(@patternfly/react-tokens))
    bundled(npm(attr-accept))
    bundled(npm(file-selector))
    bundled(npm(focus-trap))
    bundled(npm(js-tokens))
    bundled(npm(lodash))
    bundled(npm(loose-envify))
    bundled(npm(memoize-one))
    bundled(npm(object-assign))
    bundled(npm(prop-types))
    bundled(npm(react))
    bundled(npm(react-dom))
    bundled(npm(react-dropzone))
    bundled(npm(react-is))
    bundled(npm(scheduler))
    bundled(npm(tabbable))
    bundled(npm(throttle-debounce))
    bundled(npm(tslib))
    metainfo()
    metainfo(org.cockpit-project.anaconda-webui.metainfo.xml)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2248518
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Python, C/C++, Haskell, Perl, R, SugarActivity, fonts, Ocaml, Java, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comment 6 Katerina Koukiou 2023-11-13 10:59:04 UTC
Going over the 'FAILED' cases:

[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/anaconda/firefox-
     theme(anaconda-webui, anaconda-core), /usr/share/anaconda/firefox-
     theme/default(anaconda-webui, anaconda-core),
     /usr/share/anaconda/firefox-theme/default/chrome(anaconda-webui,
     anaconda-core), /usr/share/anaconda/firefox-theme/live(anaconda-webui,
     anaconda-core), /usr/share/anaconda/firefox-
     theme/live/chrome(anaconda-webui, anaconda-core)

-- These are going to be resolved when the move completes https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda/pull/5304

[!] If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.

-- It's not a rename, it's a package split and I use the Requires > 'incompatible anaconda version' as adviced here: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Conflicts/#_splitting_packages

[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.

-- Added the check target

[!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
     Note: %define requiring justification: %define anacondacorever 40.9,
     %define cockpitver 275

-- Fixed

Comment 7 Katerina Koukiou 2023-11-13 11:25:02 UTC
[?]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.

A comment on this one. The new anaconda-webui package will be now used from the main anaconda package to be launched inside a GUI app indeed. But it can/will be more than that in the future; this package will enable support remote installations, so I think it's correct to keep the details for if the installation is live (needs desktop file) or not in the parent anaconda package. Lastly there will be still distros with the old GUI (still part of the main anaconda package) for a while, and these need the desktop file as well.

Comment 8 Simon de Vlieger 2023-11-13 11:40:29 UTC
Thank you for addressing the fails so quickly, I don't see the `%check` directive yet in the upstream specfile template (only the define-to-global change). Could you also address the rpmlint output regarding the dangling link and empty files? When done I'll re-review :)

Comment 10 Fedora Review Service 2023-11-14 10:21:22 UTC
Created attachment 1999310 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6608102 to 6632109

Comment 11 Fedora Review Service 2023-11-14 10:21:25 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6632109
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2248518-anaconda-webui/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06632109-anaconda-webui/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 13 Fedora Review Service 2023-11-16 09:32:16 UTC
Created attachment 1999759 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6632109 to 6646683

Comment 14 Fedora Review Service 2023-11-16 09:32:18 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6646683
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2248518-anaconda-webui/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06646683-anaconda-webui/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 15 Simon de Vlieger 2023-11-16 10:36:51 UTC
Thanks, I'm going to ignore the dangling symlink warning from rpmlint and put this in review+ as everything looks in order.

Comment 16 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2023-11-16 13:30:09 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/anaconda-webui


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