Spec URL: http://steved.fedorapeople.org/nfsometer/nfsometer.spec SRPM URL: http://steved.fedorapeople.org/nfsometer/nfsometer-1.1-0.fc17.src.rpm Description: NFSometer is a performance measurement framework for running workloads and reporting results across NFS protocol versions, NFS options and Linux NFS client implementations. Fedora Account System Username: steved
Seems the file is not readable : Cannot download file(s): 'Error 403 downloading http://steved.fedorapeople.org/nfsometer/nfsometer-1.1-0.fc17.src.rpm'
(In reply to comment #1) > Seems the file is not readable : > > Cannot download file(s): 'Error 403 downloading > http://steved.fedorapeople.org/nfsometer/nfsometer-1.1-0.fc17.src.rpm' Please retry... it was an selinux issue on fedorapeople.org...
Build in mock fail : Exécution_de(%build): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.E1njxS + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + cd nfsometer-1.1 + LANG=C + export LANG + unset DISPLAY + /usr/bin/python setup.py build Traceback (most recent call last): File "setup.py", line 15, in <module> from setuptools.command.install import install as _install ImportError: No module named setuptools.command.install I think a BR is missing ( like python2-devel, or python3-devel ) Also, I think the COPYING file should be in %doc, as well as README ( the former for legal reason, the later for usabilty ) As a side note, I usually recommend to have 1 line for each requires, this permit to have IMHO better diff ( ie, +/- show the only change )
(In reply to comment #3) > Build in mock fail : > > Exécution_de(%build): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.E1njxS > + umask 022 > + cd /builddir/build/BUILD > + cd nfsometer-1.1 > + LANG=C > + export LANG > + unset DISPLAY > + /usr/bin/python setup.py build > Traceback (most recent call last): > File "setup.py", line 15, in <module> > from setuptools.command.install import install as _install > ImportError: No module named setuptools.command.install > > > I think a BR is missing ( like python2-devel, or python3-devel ) python-setuptools was missing... > > Also, I think the COPYING file should be in %doc, as well as README ( the > former for legal reason, the later for usabilty ) Done! > > As a side note, I usually recommend to have 1 line for each requires, this > permit to have IMHO better diff ( ie, +/- show the only change ) Good idea... Here the diff: diff .old/nfsometer.spec nfsometer.spec --- .old/nfsometer.spec 2012-07-20 21:13:39.911420286 +0000 +++ nfsometer.spec 2012-07-25 13:09:22.960228234 +0000 @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ Name: nfsometer Version: 1.1 -Release: 0%{?dist} +Release: 1%{?dist} Summary: NFS Performance Framework Tool Group: System Tools @@ -8,7 +8,12 @@ License: GPLv2 URL: http://wiki.linux-nfs.org/wiki/index.php/NFSometer Source0: http://www.linux-nfs.org/~dros/nfsometer/releases/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz -Requires: nfs-utils python-matplotlib numpy python-mako filebench +BuildRequires: python-setuptools +Requires: nfs-utils +Requires: python-matplotlib +Requires: numpy +Requires: python-mako +Requires: filebench %description NFSometer is a performance measurement framework for running workloads and @@ -30,8 +35,11 @@ NFS client implementations. #For noarch packages: sitelib %{python_sitelib}/* -%doc +%doc COPYING README %changelog +* Wed Jul 25 2012 Steve Dickson <steved> 1.1-1 +- Incorporated review comments. + * Thu Jul 19 2012 Steve Dickson <steved> 1.1-0 - Inital commit. http://steved.fedorapeople.org/nfsometer/ has been updated
+ /usr/bin/python setup.py build Error importing numpy - Make sure numpy is installed seems numpy is missing :) In fact to make it build, I have added the following ( setup.py check runtime deps at build time ) : --- /home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/nfsometer/nfsometer.spec 2012-07-25 15:09:22.000000000 +0200 +++ SPECS/nfsometer.spec 2012-07-25 22:24:33.383177536 +0200 @@ -9,6 +9,9 @@ Source0: http://www.linux-nfs.org/~dros/nfsometer/releases/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz BuildRequires: python-setuptools +BuildRequires: numpy +BuildRequires: python-matplotlib +BuildRequires: python-mako Requires: nfs-utils Requires: python-matplotlib Requires: numpy
(In reply to comment #5) > + /usr/bin/python setup.py build > Error importing numpy - Make sure numpy is installed > > seems numpy is missing :) > > In fact to make it build, I have added the following ( setup.py check > runtime deps at build time ) : > > --- /home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/nfsometer/nfsometer.spec 2012-07-25 > 15:09:22.000000000 +0200 > +++ SPECS/nfsometer.spec 2012-07-25 22:24:33.383177536 +0200 > @@ -9,6 +9,9 @@ > Source0: > http://www.linux-nfs.org/~dros/nfsometer/releases/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz > > BuildRequires: python-setuptools > +BuildRequires: numpy > +BuildRequires: python-matplotlib > +BuildRequires: python-mako > Requires: nfs-utils > Requires: python-matplotlib > Requires: numpy That makes senses.... Spec file and source rpm have on http://steved.fedorapeople.org/nfsometer/ have been updated.
Same 403 as first comment.
(In reply to comment #7) > Same 403 as first comment. Please try it again... Selinux strikes again!
There is 2 rpmlint warning : nfsometer.x86_64: W: non-standard-group System Tools nfsometer.x86_64: E: no-binary You need to add Arch: noarch ( since that's a noarch rpm ), and fix the group ( even if i am not sure of the status of the group in Fedora, as there is no policy, The license tag is also wrong, should be GPLv2+ ( since there is a "or later" clause ) Running it show that it may use iozone and bonnie++, should they be added as Requires or as a documentation somehwere ? ( also, it may need git, make, tar and other stuff, so I am not sure on how to proceed there ) Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== Generic ==== [x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x]: MUST 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 %doc. [!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later)" For detailed output of licensecheck see file: /home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/nfsometer/nfsometer/licensecheck.txt [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters. [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Package is not relocatable. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [!]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. Issues ------ [!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [!]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. Rpmlint ------- Checking: nfsometer-debuginfo-1.1-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm nfsometer-1.1-1.fc17.src.rpm nfsometer-1.1-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm nfsometer-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package nfsometer.src: W: non-standard-group System Tools nfsometer.src:1: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 1) nfsometer.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency python-matplotlib nfsometer.x86_64: W: non-standard-group System Tools nfsometer.x86_64: E: no-binary 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- nfsometer-debuginfo-1.1-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nfsometer-1.1-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash /usr/bin/python filebench nfs-utils numpy python(abi) = 2.7 python-mako python-matplotlib Provides -------- nfsometer-debuginfo-1.1-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm: nfsometer-debuginfo = 1.1-1.fc17 nfsometer-debuginfo(x86-64) = 1.1-1.fc17 nfsometer-1.1-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm: nfsometer = 1.1-1.fc17 nfsometer(x86-64) = 1.1-1.fc17 MD5-sum check ------------- http://www.linux-nfs.org/~dros/nfsometer/releases/nfsometer-1.1.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : efbca65ec863b63cb852baac5ff409cf MD5SUM upstream package : efbca65ec863b63cb852baac5ff409cf Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0 (a5c4ced) last change: 2012-07-22 Command line :../try-fedora-review -n nfsometer External plugins:
(In reply to comment #9) > There is 2 rpmlint warning : > > nfsometer.x86_64: W: non-standard-group System Tools > > nfsometer.x86_64: E: no-binary > > You need to add Arch: noarch ( since that's a noarch rpm ), and fix the > group ( even if i am not sure of the status of the group in Fedora, as there > is no policy, I'm assuming you mean a "BuildArch: noarch" I changed the group to: "Group: Applications/System" > > The license tag is also wrong, should be GPLv2+ ( since there is a "or > later" clause ) The License is now: "License: GPLv2+" > > > > Running it show that it may use iozone and bonnie++, should they be added as > Requires or as a documentation somehwere ? ( also, it may need git, make, > tar and other stuff, so I am not sure on how to proceed there ) Those will be used if they exist... The README talks about which workloads exist by default and which ones are optional... So I think this is good to go... I believe I have all the rpmlint warnings removed: $ rpmlint nfsometer-1.1-1.fc17.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint nfsometer.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Spec file and source rpm have on http://steved.fedorapeople.org/nfsometer/ have been updated (and restorecon-ed ;-) )
Indeed, the last issue were fixed, so approved.
(In reply to comment #11) > Indeed, the last issue were fixed, so approved. Thank you for your insight and time!
Steve, didn't you forgot to ask for the package to be added to git ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests#New_Packages ) ?
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: NFSometer Short Description: NFS Performance Framework Tool Owners: steved Branches: f18 InitialCC:
Use FAS account, not email address. Names in summary and SCM request don't match, please correct, and don't request f18, it's not branched yet and master is automatic.
(In reply to comment #15) > Use FAS account, not email address. Names in summary and SCM request don't > match, please correct, and don't request f18, it's not branched yet and > master is automatic. Is this better? New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: NFSometer Short Description: NFS Performance Framework Tool Owners: steved Branches: InitialCC:
The names still don't match, should it be partially capitalized, or all lowercase?
(In reply to comment #17) > The names still don't match, should it be partially capitalized, or all > lowercase? I know case mattered... how is this one? New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: nfsometer Short Description: NFS Performance Framework Tool Owners: steved Branches: InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests). Perfect, thanks!
(In reply to comment #19) > Git done (by process-git-requests). > > Perfect, thanks! fedpkg clone nfsometer seems to work but no other fedpkg commands (like fedpkg prep or fedpkg local) seem to work... What do I need to do?
Have you done fedpkg import of your SRPM?
(In reply to comment #21) > Have you done fedpkg import of your SRPM? I guess I didn't know I need to do that... I just assumed (wrongly) that would happen when the git tree was created. So I've don the import on both the master and f18 branch as well as the fedpkg build... is there anything else I need to do to ensure the package is included in f18? tia!!
Submit an update bodhi for the f18 build. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates Also, best practice is to fedpkg import the SRPM on master, then fedpkg switch-branch f18, git merge master, fedpkg push, fedpkg build.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: nfsometer New Branches: el6 Owners: steved djuran
Git done (by process-git-requests).