[Bug 920387] Review Request: heat-cfntools - Instance tools for Heat provisioned instances
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Mar 12 15:08:13 UTC 2013
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=920387
--- Comment #4 from Steven Dake <sdake at redhat.com> ---
(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
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ZWPXTKPLdR&a=cc_unsubscribe
More information about the package-review
mailing list