Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/sdake/fedora-reviews/master/heat-cfntools/heat-cfntools.spec Description: Heat tools used inside guest vms for provisioning SRPM URL: https://github.com/sdake/fedora-reviews/raw/master/heat-cfntools/heat-cfntools-1.2.0-1.fc18.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: sdake
Package Review ============== Key: [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. [ ]: 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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/kashyap/rpmbuild/SRPMS /heat-cfntools/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package consistently uses macro is (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. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [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 %doc. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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 [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). Python: [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== 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. [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: heat-cfntools-1.2.0-1.fc18.noarch.rpm heat-cfntools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfn-init heat-cfntools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfn-create-aws-symlinks heat-cfntools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfn-signal heat-cfntools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfn-get-metadata heat-cfntools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfn-push-stats heat-cfntools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfn-hup 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint heat-cfntools heat-cfntools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfn-init heat-cfntools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfn-create-aws-symlinks heat-cfntools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfn-signal heat-cfntools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfn-get-metadata heat-cfntools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfn-push-stats heat-cfntools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfn-hup 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- heat-cfntools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python python(abi) python-boto python-psutil Provides -------- heat-cfntools: heat-cfntools MD5-sum check ------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/h/heat-cfntools/heat-cfntools-1.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ab305b318eacc0a0092fabd6897274ec28e9b3f6d30e03b0dc82765233bb729b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ab305b318eacc0a0092fabd6897274ec28e9b3f6d30e03b0dc82765233bb729b Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29 Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --rpm-spec -n heat-cfntools-1.2.0-1.fc18.src.rpm
-> Koji scratch build successful: #------------------------------------# kashyap@SRPMS$ koji build --scratch f19 heat-cfntools-1.2.0-1.fc18.src.rpm Uploading srpm: heat-cfntools-1.2.0-1.fc18.src.rpm [====================================] 100% 00:00:02 23.15 KiB 10.50 KiB/sec Created task: 5111164 Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5111164 Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)... 5111164 build (f19, heat-cfntools-1.2.0-1.fc18.src.rpm): open (buildvm-08.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 5111165 buildArch (heat-cfntools-1.2.0-1.fc18.src.rpm, noarch): open (buildvm-26.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 5111165 buildArch (heat-cfntools-1.2.0-1.fc18.src.rpm, noarch): open (buildvm-26.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 1 open 1 done 0 failed 5111164 build (f19, heat-cfntools-1.2.0-1.fc18.src.rpm): open (buildvm-08.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 0 open 2 done 0 failed 5111164 build (f19, heat-cfntools-1.2.0-1.fc18.src.rpm) completed successfully #------------------------------------#
===== Manual review of MUST items from Comment #1 ===== [X ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. - Apache License Version 2.0 [X]: Changelog in prescribed format. [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]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [X]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [X]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [X]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [X]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/kashyap/rpmbuild/SRPMS /heat-cfntools/licensecheck.txt -> Output from licensecheck.txt ================================ $ cat licensecheck.txt Apache (v2.0) ------------- /var/lib/mock/fedora-18-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/heat-cfntools-1.2/heat_cfntools/tests/test_cfn_helper.py *No copyright* Apache (v2.0) ---------------------------- /var/lib/mock/fedora-18-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/heat-cfntools-1.2/setup.py ================================ [X]: Package consistently uses macro is (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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [X]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [X ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [X]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: The only minor nit is there's no copyright in -- /var/lib/mock/fedora-18-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/heat-cfntools-1.2/setup.py As it's under a MUST item, it needs to be addressed I guess. Rest all looks good to me, package approved w/ the above nit addressed. Scratch build successful per comment #2.
(In reply to comment #1) > Package Review > ============== > > Key: > [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. > [ ]: 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 requires other packages for directories it uses. > [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. > [ ]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. > [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines > [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: > "Apache (v2.0)", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 2 files have unknown > license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/kashyap/rpmbuild/SRPMS > /heat-cfntools/licensecheck.txt > [ ]: Package consistently uses macro is (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. > [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. > [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. > [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. > [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. > Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files. > [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that > are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. > [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the > beginning of %install. > [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 > [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. > [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. > [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. > [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. > [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. > [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 %doc. > [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't > work. > [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. > [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist > [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 > [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). > > Python: > [ ]: 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. > [ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python > [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel > [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep > > ===== 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. > [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains > translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. > [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported > architectures. > [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. > [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. > [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag > [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]: Dist tag is present. > [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. > [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. > [x]: SourceX is a working URL. > [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. > > ===== EXTRA items ===== > > Generic: > [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package > is > arched. > [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. > Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). > > > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: heat-cfntools-1.2.0-1.fc18.noarch.rpm > heat-cfntools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfn-init > heat-cfntools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfn-create-aws-symlinks > heat-cfntools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfn-signal > heat-cfntools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfn-get-metadata > heat-cfntools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfn-push-stats > heat-cfntools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfn-hup > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. > > > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > # rpmlint heat-cfntools > heat-cfntools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfn-init > heat-cfntools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfn-create-aws-symlinks > heat-cfntools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfn-signal > heat-cfntools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfn-get-metadata > heat-cfntools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfn-push-stats > heat-cfntools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfn-hup > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. > # echo 'rpmlint-done:' > > > > Requires > -------- > heat-cfntools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > /usr/bin/python > python(abi) > python-boto > python-psutil > > > > Provides > -------- > heat-cfntools: > heat-cfntools > > > > MD5-sum check > ------------- > https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/h/heat-cfntools/heat-cfntools-1.2. > tar.gz : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : > ab305b318eacc0a0092fabd6897274ec28e9b3f6d30e03b0dc82765233bb729b > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > ab305b318eacc0a0092fabd6897274ec28e9b3f6d30e03b0dc82765233bb729b > > > Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29 > Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64 > Command line :/bin/fedora-review --rpm-spec -n > heat-cfntools-1.2.0-1.fc18.src.rpm (In reply to comment #3) > ===== Manual review of MUST items from Comment #1 ===== > > [X ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets > other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging > Guidelines. > - Apache License Version 2.0 > > [X]: Changelog in prescribed format. > [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]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. > [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. > [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package > [-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > [X]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. > [X]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. > [X]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines > [X]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: > "Apache (v2.0)", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 2 files have unknown > license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/kashyap/rpmbuild/SRPMS > /heat-cfntools/licensecheck.txt > > -> Output from licensecheck.txt > ================================ > $ cat licensecheck.txt > > Apache (v2.0) > ------------- > /var/lib/mock/fedora-18-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/heat-cfntools-1.2/ > heat_cfntools/tests/test_cfn_helper.py > > *No copyright* Apache (v2.0) > ---------------------------- > /var/lib/mock/fedora-18-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/heat-cfntools-1.2/ > setup.py > ================================ > > [X]: Package consistently uses macro is (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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > [X]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > [X ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. > [X]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. > [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. > [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. > > > > Note: The only minor nit is there's no copyright in -- > /var/lib/mock/fedora-18-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/heat-cfntools-1.2/ > setup.py > > As it's under a MUST item, it needs to be addressed I guess. > > Rest all looks good to me, package approved w/ the above nit addressed. > > Scratch build successful per comment #2. Thanks for the quick review! Note that the policy is that if the project doesn't have a LICENSE file, it must have license text on each source file. A LICENSE file overrides individual copyrights on py files. None-the-less I have filed a bug with upstream because IMO files should all have license headers in the case they are copied out of tree: https://bugs.launchpad.net/heat-cfntools/+bug/1154136 In the meantime, could you approve the package with the understanding that I will rebase as soon as the upstream update comes out? Thanks -steve
Fine. Per comment #4, reviewed and pkg approved.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: heat-cfntools Short Description: Heat tools for Heat Instances Owners: sdake, asalkeld, jpeeler, zaneb Branches: devel, f19 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: heat-cfntools New Branches: el6 Owners: sdake, asalkeld, jpeeler, zaneb InitialCC:
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: heat-cfntools New Branches: f18 Owners: sdake, asalkeld, jpeeler, zaneb InitialCC:
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: heat-cfntools New Branches: epel7 Owners: sdake, jpeeler, zaneb InitialCC: Can be branched from el6. Note, this request is also listed here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/epel7/Requests