[Bug 1193986] Review Request: openstack-rally - Benchmark as a service for OpenStack

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Feb 24 08:08:33 UTC 2015 

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1193986

Pranav Kant <pranav913 at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |pranav913 at gmail.com



--- Comment #2 from Pranav Kant <pranav913 at gmail.com> ---
This is an unofficial review only.


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

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

Issues:
=======
- Package doesn't installs properly in my case.
- Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  Please be consistent with only one of them.
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros
- Please use %license for your LICENSE file. This has changed rececntly.
  See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Use_license_macro_in_RPMs_for_packages_in_Cloud_Image
- You are using too much asterisks in your description of the spec file.
  The description in your summary makes extensive use of asterisks. Please
  note that these are not translated to anything. So, IMHO, their use should
  be minimal in spec file.

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

Generic:
[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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Licenses found:
     "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)".
     21 files have unknown license.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[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
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
     I am not sure about this. But your spec file makes considerable use of
     hard-coded directory names. Though, I see no advantage of using macros in
     this case, so this might be ok.
[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.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
     See Issues above.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
     supported primary architecture.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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 %license.
     See Issues above.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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]: 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]: 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.

Python:
[?]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
[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

===== 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: 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.
     See Issues above. Wrapping words with asterisks (*) won't mark them for
translation.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[?]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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 (not strictly required in GL).
[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 unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Mock build failed in my case.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Installation errors
-------------------
INFO: mock.py version 1.2.6 starting (python version = 2.7.8)...
Start: init plugins
INFO: selinux enabled
Finish: init plugins
Start: run
Start: chroot init
INFO: calling preinit hooks
INFO: enabled root cache
INFO: enabled yum cache
Start: cleaning yum metadata
Finish: cleaning yum metadata
INFO: enabled ccache
Mock Version: 1.2.6
INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.6
Finish: chroot init
INFO: installing package(s):
/home/fedora/1193986-openstack-rally/results/openstack-rally-0.0.1-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output.
 # /usr/bin/yum --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-21-x86_64/root/ --releasever
21 install
/home/fedora/1193986-openstack-rally/results/openstack-rally-0.0.1-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
--setopt=tsflags=nocontexts


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: openstack-rally-0.0.1-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
          openstack-rally-0.0.1-1.fc21.src.rpm
openstack-rally.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/bash_completion.d/rally.bash_completion
openstack-rally.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rally-manage
openstack-rally.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rally
openstack-rally.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rally-api
openstack-rally.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%post chmod
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.




Requires
--------
openstack-rally (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    /usr/bin/python2
    python(abi)
    python-babel
    python-decorator
    python-fixtures
    python-iso8601
    python-jinja2
    python-jsonschema
    python-netaddr
    python-openstack-ceilometerclient
    python-openstack-cinderclient
    python-openstack-designateclient
    python-openstack-glanceclient
    python-openstack-heatclient
    python-openstack-ironicclient
    python-openstack-keystoneclient
    python-openstack-neutronclient
    python-openstack-novaclient
    python-openstack-saharaclient
    python-openstack-troveclient
    python-openstack-zaqarclient
    python-oslo-config
    python-oslo-db
    python-oslo-i18n
    python-oslo-serialization
    python-oslo-utils
    python-paramiko
    python-pecan
    python-prettytable
    python-psycopg2
    python-pyyaml
    python-requests
    python-six
    python-sphinx
    python-sqlalchemy
    python-subunit
    python-wsme



Provides
--------
openstack-rally:
    openstack-rally

Looks OK.

Source checksums
----------------
http://tarballs.openstack.org/rally/rally-0.0.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
a5eec9c78121d64c320e73036f353c2609e532698f35e1d54f4b0f1624d19e43
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
a5eec9c78121d64c320e73036f353c2609e532698f35e1d54f4b0f1624d19e43

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component

More information about the package-review mailing list