Bug 879749 - Review Request: xs-activation - OLPC XS Activation Server [NEEDINFO]
Summary: Review Request: xs-activation - OLPC XS Activation Server
Keywords:
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
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: 879752
Blocks: FE-NEEDSPONSOR
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2012-11-24 04:30 UTC by Alex
Modified: 2013-11-21 15:41 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2012-11-24 13:43:06 UTC
Type: ---
aadavis1: needinfo? (misc)


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Alex 2012-11-24 04:30:30 UTC
Spec URL: http://matrix.senecac.on.ca/~aadavis1/packaging/xs-activation.spec
SRPM URL: http://matrix.senecac.on.ca/~aadavis1/packaging/xs-activation-0.3.14.gd2a3727-2.fc17.src.rpm
Description: Hi! I just finished packaging up xs-activation, and I would appreciate a review so that I can get it into fedora extras.

Fedora Account System Username:aadavis1

Comment 1 Michael S. 2012-11-24 13:43:06 UTC
Hi alex,

this package was already submitted and refuse, please look at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879568 for the reason ( and a few notes on the previously exposed spec )

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 879568 ***

Comment 2 Michael S. 2012-11-24 13:44:33 UTC
Oups, wrong bug, sorry

Comment 3 Michael S. 2012-11-24 13:49:16 UTC
So,

I assume you do not have yet a sponsor, I can review and help you, but you will need to find one ( following https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process ) to sponsor if your task is to have them in Fedora. I applied for sponsorship 1 hour ago, but I am not guaranteed to become one, so better try to find one ( as i said to your comrade, I would suggest to get in touch with ctyler ).

In the mean time, i will review this package.

Comment 4 Michael S. 2012-11-24 14:27:53 UTC
A few notes as part of the review :

1) Packager tag should not be used
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags


2) I do not think %post should be kept, as people may not read it, and that it doesn't help much. I think there is even a policy to say that %post should be silent.

3)
%install
echo "hello"
#rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
pwd
ls
make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT PYTHON_SITELIB=%{python_sitelib} install

no need for echo, pwd, ls, as this is likely just for debugging.

4) having /library is forbidden in Fedora :
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Filesystem_Layout

We cannot create arbitrary top level directory. So you should see with upstream to change this.

5) the changelog entry should be more descriptive 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs
( ie, explain what you changed before the previous version and this one

6) BuildArch:      x86_64

Why limit to x86_64 ?


7) THis one is subtle.
%{_sysconfdir}/sysconfig/olpc-scripts/setup.d/* 

If you install xs-activation, and remove it, as the directory /etc/sysconfig/olpc-scripts/ is not listed in %files, it would not be removed, and so this would be a leftover. We try to avoid that. See 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories for details 

8) 
BuildRequires:  python-devel

you need to explin if this is python2 or python3 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires ( otherwise, this may break the day we switch to python3, so we try to be proactive and prevent the issue before it happens )

9) 
Requires:       bash
Requires:       python

Bash is preinstalled, and I think python will be automatically detected ( ie, rpm will add the requires by itself )

10) 
Requires:       usbmount

usbmount is not in Fedora, so the package need to be added.

11) 
%{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print get_python_lib()")}

not sure if that's needed anymore, since all supported Fedora should already have the macro defined

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros

12) the description is rather terse, and could IMHO be improved.

13) I think a better url would be http://wiki.laptop.org/go/XS-activation 

Do not hesitate to contact me ( either misc, on irc.freenode.net ), or ask question in this bug if there is something unclear.

Comment 5 Alex 2012-11-25 16:29:03 UTC
(In reply to comment #4)
> A few notes as part of the review :
> 
> 1) Packager tag should not be used
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags
> 
> 
> 2) I do not think %post should be kept, as people may not read it, and that
> it doesn't help much. I think there is even a policy to say that %post
> should be silent.
> 
> 3)
> %install
> echo "hello"
> #rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> pwd
> ls
> make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT PYTHON_SITELIB=%{python_sitelib} install
> 
> no need for echo, pwd, ls, as this is likely just for debugging.
> 
> 4) having /library is forbidden in Fedora :
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Filesystem_Layout
> 
> We cannot create arbitrary top level directory. So you should see with
> upstream to change this.
> 
> 5) the changelog entry should be more descriptive 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs
> ( ie, explain what you changed before the previous version and this one
> 
> 6) BuildArch:      x86_64
> 
> Why limit to x86_64 ?
> 
> 
> 7) THis one is subtle.
> %{_sysconfdir}/sysconfig/olpc-scripts/setup.d/* 
> 
> If you install xs-activation, and remove it, as the directory
> /etc/sysconfig/olpc-scripts/ is not listed in %files, it would not be
> removed, and so this would be a leftover. We try to avoid that. See 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories for details 
> 
> 8) 
> BuildRequires:  python-devel
> 
> you need to explin if this is python2 or python3 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires ( otherwise,
> this may break the day we switch to python3, so we try to be proactive and
> prevent the issue before it happens )
> 
> 9) 
> Requires:       bash
> Requires:       python
> 
> Bash is preinstalled, and I think python will be automatically detected (
> ie, rpm will add the requires by itself )
> 
> 10) 
> Requires:       usbmount
> 
> usbmount is not in Fedora, so the package need to be added.
> 
> 11) 
> %{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from
> distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print get_python_lib()")}
> 
> not sure if that's needed anymore, since all supported Fedora should already
> have the macro defined
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros
> 
> 12) the description is rather terse, and could IMHO be improved.
> 
> 13) I think a better url would be http://wiki.laptop.org/go/XS-activation 
> 
> Do not hesitate to contact me ( either misc, on irc.freenode.net ), or ask
> question in this bug if there is something unclear.

thanks. 

for the x86_64 I use this because I was to do a x86_64 or i386 build on the package. I thought if noarch build was removed I will get an x86_64.


I made changes to the correction should I resubmit the review?

Comment 6 Michael S. 2012-11-25 19:57:29 UTC
For package, if you want to do x86_64, you build on x86_64 host, and the same for i386.

Once you have made correction, just give the url to the new version of the spec file and srpm.

Comment 7 Alex 2012-11-25 20:08:10 UTC
Spec URL: http://matrix.senecac.on.ca/~aadavis1/packaging/xs-activation.spec
SRPM URL: http://matrix.senecac.on.ca/~aadavis1/packaging/xs-activation-0.3.14.gd2a3727-2.fc17.src.rpm
Description: Hi! I just finished packaging up xs-activation, and I would appreciate a review so that I can get it into fedora extras.

correction have been made, I just comment (#) the places where a few things are not needed and update the changelog. 

Fedora Account System Username:aadavis1

Comment 8 Alex 2012-11-27 01:20:11 UTC
hey I think uploading this in the fedora review will mark it as a duplicate so I post the links above. it the same source but file is uploaded.

just waiting for a sponsor

Comment 9 Alex 2012-11-27 01:21:45 UTC
hey I think uploading this in the fedora review will mark it as a duplicate so I post the links above. it the same source but file is uploaded.

just waiting for a sponsor

Comment 10 Alex 2012-12-02 00:22:16 UTC
Spec URL: http://matrix.senecac.on.ca/~aadavis1/packaging/xs-activation.spec
SRPM URL: http://matrix.senecac.on.ca/~aadavis1/packaging/xs-activation-0.3.14.gd2a3727-2.fc17.src.rpm
Description: Hi, I have rebuild this package to meet Fedora Packaging Guideline.I would appreciate your feedback and review.

Fedora Account System Username: aadavis1


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