Bug 998701 - Review Request: python-savannaclient - Client library for OpenStack Savanna API
Summary: Review Request: python-savannaclient - Client library for OpenStack Savanna API
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jakub Ruzicka
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: bigdata-review
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2013-08-19 20:00 UTC by Matthew Farrellee
Modified: 2013-10-04 20:06 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version: python-savannaclient-0.3-0.1.f816386git.el6
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-09-03 22:26:04 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
jruzicka: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Matthew Farrellee 2013-08-19 20:00:06 UTC
Spec URL: http://matt.fedorapeople.org/pkg/0/python-savannaclient.spec
SRPM URL: http://matt.fedorapeople.org/pkg/0/python-savannaclient-0.3-0.1.f816386git.fc19.src.rpm
Description: This is a client for the OpenStack Savanna API.
Fedora Account System Username: matt

Comment 1 Jakub Ruzicka 2013-08-20 14:53:19 UTC
Looks good, just a few details:
 - Fix version in changelog (release is -0.1* not -0.3*)
 - README.rst is empty - don't include it in %doc
 - requirements.txt states babel and netaddr and these are imported at openstack/common/{jsonutils,gettextutils}.py but they aren't listed as Requires. Not sure if they are used/needed, please check.
 - [OPTIONAL] You might consider nuking hard capped setup_requires from setup.py to avoid problems in future (like pbr downloading them during build when versions aren't met).
 - [OPTIONAL] I presume you took Description/Summary from novaclient which IMHO kinda sucks. I present arguably clearer alternatives, although it's really a matter of taste so feel free to ignore me here:
    - Summary: Client library for OpenStack Savanna API
    - Description: Python client library for interacting with OpenStack Savanna API.



Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated



===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format. See rpmlint warning below.
[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.
[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
[?]: 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)". Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/jruzicka/pkg/review/998701-python-savannaclient/licensecheck.txt
[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: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 3 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]: 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:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[x]: 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.
[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.
[!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
     Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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 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).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python-savannaclient-0.3-0.1.f816386git.fc19.noarch.rpm
python-savannaclient.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.3-0.3.f816386git ['0.3-0.1.f816386git.fc19', '0.3-0.1.f816386git']
python-savannaclient.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/python-savannaclient-0.3/README.rst
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint python-savannaclient
python-savannaclient.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.3-0.3.f816386git ['0.3-0.1.f816386git.fc19', '0.3-0.1.f816386git']
python-savannaclient.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/python-savannaclient-0.3/README.rst
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
python-savannaclient (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python-iso8601
    python-requests
    python-setuptools
    python-six



Provides
--------
python-savannaclient:
    python-savannaclient



Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated



===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format. See rpmlint warning below.
[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.
[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
[?]: 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)". Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/jruzicka/pkg/review/998701-python-savannaclient/licensecheck.txt
[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: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 3 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]: 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:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[x]: 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.
[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.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
     Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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 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).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python-savannaclient-0.3-0.1.f816386git.fc19.noarch.rpm
python-savannaclient.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.3-0.3.f816386git ['0.3-0.1.f816386git.fc19', '0.3-0.1.f816386git']
python-savannaclient.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/python-savannaclient-0.3/README.rst
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint python-savannaclient
python-savannaclient.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.3-0.3.f816386git ['0.3-0.1.f816386git.fc19', '0.3-0.1.f816386git']
python-savannaclient.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/python-savannaclient-0.3/README.rst
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
python-savannaclient (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python-iso8601
    python-requests
    python-setuptools
    python-six



Provides
--------
python-savannaclient:
    python-savannaclient

Comment 2 Alan Pevec 2013-08-20 15:37:19 UTC
Please use https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github
URL in comments is not unique i.e. python-savannaclient-master.tar.gz changes with each commit!

Comment 3 Matthew Farrellee 2013-08-20 15:40:42 UTC
 - Fix version in changelog (release is -0.1* not -0.3*)
  -> DONE
 - README.rst is empty - don't include it in %doc
  -> DONE
 - requirements.txt states babel and netaddr and these are imported at openstack/common/{jsonutils,gettextutils}.py but they aren't listed as Requires. Not sure if they are used/needed, please check.
  -> DONE: added Requires: python-babel and python-netaddr
 - [OPTIONAL] You might consider nuking hard capped setup_requires from setup.py to avoid problems in future (like pbr downloading them during build when versions aren't met).
  -> NOT DONE: previously I tried to do that w/ sed -i '/.../d' and was not successful, suggestions?
 - [OPTIONAL] I presume you took Description/Summary from novaclient which IMHO kinda sucks. I present arguably clearer alternatives, although it's really a matter of taste so feel free to ignore me here:
    - Summary: Client library for OpenStack Savanna API
    - Description: Python client library for interacting with OpenStack Savanna API.
  -> DONE: I like your suggestions

Also, changed "%{shortcommit}" to "%%{..." per rpmlint's "python-savannaclient.src:12: W: macro-in-comment %{shortcommit}".

Spec URL: http://matt.fedorapeople.org/pkg/1/python-savannaclient.spec
SRPM URL: http://matt.fedorapeople.org/pkg/1/python-savannaclient-0.3-0.1.f816386git.fc19.src.rpm

Comment 4 Matthew Farrellee 2013-08-20 15:44:31 UTC
(In reply to Alan Pevec from comment #2)
> Please use https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github
> URL in comments is not unique i.e. python-savannaclient-master.tar.gz
> changes with each commit!

I tried that without success. The issue is python-savannaclient uses pbr, which requires either an sdist tarball or access to the git repository. Unfortunately, the github tarballs are from git archive, not from sdist. I figured that I'll have to update the commit to match the tarball that goes into the Fedora tarball repository, but it would be ok for the time being. At the next release, 0.3, an appropriate tarball will exist at http://tarballs.openstack.org.

Is this acceptable? If not, do you have a suggestion on how to address the sdist dependency of pbr?

Comment 5 Jakub Ruzicka 2013-08-20 15:50:11 UTC
Fair enough, approved.

Thank you for your effort!

Comment 6 Matthew Farrellee 2013-08-20 15:53:30 UTC
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: python-savannaclient
Short Description: Client library for OpenStack Savanna API
Owners: matt jruzicka
Branches: f19 el6
InitialCC:

Comment 7 Gwyn Ciesla 2013-08-20 16:35:03 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2013-08-20 17:45:16 UTC
python-savannaclient-0.3-0.1.f816386git.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-savannaclient-0.3-0.1.f816386git.fc19

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2013-08-20 17:57:19 UTC
python-savannaclient-0.3-0.1.f816386git.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-savannaclient-0.3-0.1.f816386git.el6

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2013-08-21 19:02:25 UTC
python-savannaclient-0.3-0.1.f816386git.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2013-09-03 22:26:04 UTC
python-savannaclient-0.3-0.1.f816386git.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2013-09-05 19:11:36 UTC
python-savannaclient-0.3-0.1.f816386git.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.


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