[Bug 1344276] New: Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

Bug ID: 1344276
           Summary: Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS
                    clusters and other utilities
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
         Component: Package Review
          Severity: medium
          Assignee: [e-mail]
          Reporter: [e-mail]
        QA Contact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail]

Hi,

Request to review the package gdeploy for inclusion in Fedora package repo.
This is my first package, I need a sponsor. I've built a koji build, can
be found here: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14422056

Spec URL: http://download.gluster.org/pub/gluster/gdeploy/gdeploy.spec
SRPM URL: http://download.gluster.org/pub/gluster/gdeploy/gdeploy-2.1-0.src.rpm

Description: gdeploy is an Ansible based tool initially built to deploy
GlusterFS. Later enhanced to do more than just deploying GlusterFS clusters, it
handles lot of system administration tasks like installing packages using yum,
subscribing to Red Hat Subscription Management, updating files on remote hosts,
start and stopping services, and lot more. More details and documentation can
be
found at: gdeploy.readthedocs.io

Fedora Account System Username: sac

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

Niels de Vos  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail],
                   |                            |[e-mail]
             Blocks|                            |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

Parag AN(पराग)  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
           Assignee|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]
              Flags|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
Taking this for review.

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

--- Comment #2 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
Suggestions:
 As per current packaging guidelines given on
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines

1) use %global instead of %define, See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over...

2)  In %install, following is now optional and should be removed
rm -rf %{buildroot}

as per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections

3) Group and BuildRoot tag are not needed now, remove them.

4) Good to write every Require: per line

5) Why every package in Requires: need hard versioned requirement? I think
whatever packages are in Fedora should satisfy the requirements and make this
package run without any issues. Onlyif it needs some different version then
that issue need to be fixed like some package need higher version and if its
not yet in Fedora then that package should be updated to that higher version
thus no need to write explicit versions

6) You need to go through https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python which
can tell you we now use explicitly "python2" wherever you have used "python"

7) we don't need now %clean section, remove it

8) You may write your spec accordingly python packaging guidelines.

9) I can't find the 2.1.0 tarball on the given source location, fix this

Submit new SPEC and SRPM by fixing above issues and adding new changelog entry.
Every time you make some change in SPEC, you need to update the release tag and
add changelog.

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

--- Comment #3 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
Also, I want to note here that we have this process, 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group to 
get sponsored into the packager group. Can you either submit few more packages 
and/or some full detailed package reviews? This is needed to make sure package 
submitter understands the rpm packaging well and follows the fedora packaging 
guidelines.

Please go through the following links
1) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process

2) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines

3) To find the packages already submitted for review,
   check http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/

4) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines and
   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Reviewer is useful 
   while doing package reviews.

5) https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/ this is fedora-review tool to help
   review packages in fedora. You need to use this and do un-official package 
   reviews of packages submitted by other contributors. While doing so mention 
   "This is un-official review of the package." at top of your review comment.

Good to review packages listed in
http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html

When you do full package review of some packages, provide that review comment 
link here so that I can look how you have reviewed those packages.

If you got any questions please ask here or on Freenode IRC join #fedora-devel
:)

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

Ken Dreyer  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #4 from Ken Dreyer  ---
Would you please address each of Parag's comments above and update the package
to the latest upstream version?

I'm a sponsor, so I can sponsor you if you would please do one satisfactory
unofficial review of a package in Parag's links above, and ensure that this
package gets cleaned up.

For example, this sort of boilerplate seems common in the Gluster community and
is unneeded:

%define name gdeploy
  %define version 2.1
  %define release 0

In fact it will break tools like rpmdev-bumpspec that Fedora rel-eng uses for
mass rebuilds. It's better to simply define the values directly in the RPM:

Name:           gdeploy
  Version:        2.1
  Release:        1%{?dist}

The URL should be the upstream project, https://github.com/gluster/gdeploy, not
Red Hat's storage website.

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

Sachidananda Urs  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #5 from Sachidananda Urs  ---
(In reply to Ken Dreyer from comment #4)
> Would you please address each of Parag's comments above and update the
> package to the latest upstream version?

Ack! I will do that.
> I'm a sponsor, so I can sponsor you if you would please do one satisfactory
> unofficial review of a package in Parag's links above, and ensure that this
> package gets cleaned up.

Sure, I will do that. Thanks for this.
> For example, this sort of boilerplate seems common in the Gluster community
> and is unneeded:
>
> %define name gdeploy
>   %define version 2.1
>   %define release 0
>
> In fact it will break tools like rpmdev-bumpspec that Fedora rel-eng uses
> for mass rebuilds. It's better to simply define the values directly in the
> RPM:
>
> Name:           gdeploy
>   Version:        2.1
>   Release:        1%{?dist}
>
> The URL should be the upstream project, https://github.com/gluster/gdeploy,
> not Red Hat's storage website.

Sure. I will make these changes. Thanks for helping on this.

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

--- Comment #6 from Sachidananda Urs  ---
(In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #2)
> Suggestions:
>  As per current packaging guidelines given on
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
> use %global instead of %define, See
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.
> 25global_preferred_over_.25define

Done.
> In %install, following is now optional and should be removed
>
> rm -rf %{buildroot}
>
> as per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections

Done.
> Group and BuildRoot tag are not needed now, remove them.

Done.
> Good to write every Require: per line

Done.
> Why every package in Requires: need hard versioned requirement? I think
>
> whatever packages are in Fedora should satisfy the requirements and make
> this package run without any issues. Onlyif it needs some different version
> then that issue need to be fixed like some package need higher version and
> if its not yet in Fedora then that package should be updated to that higher
> version thus no need to write explicit versions

Makes sense. However we need version information for Ansible.
Fedora ships 1.x, we need 2.x.
> You need to go through https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
>
> which can tell you we now use explicitly "python2" wherever you have used
> "python"

Done.
> we don't need now %clean section, remove it

Ack.
> You may write your spec accordingly python packaging guidelines.
>
> I can't find the 2.1.0 tarball on the given source location, fix this

This should not be a problem in future. I will make changes to point to
git tags.
> Submit new SPEC and SRPM by fixing above issues and adding new changelog
> entry. Every time you make some change in SPEC, you need to update the
> release tag and add changelog.

Sure.

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

--- Comment #7 from Sachidananda Urs  ---
Hi I've made changes to the spec file and can be found at:

https://github.com/gluster/gdeploy/blob/master/gdeploy.spec

I'll request to upload the srpm to a publicly accessible location.
The change I'm not confident in the spec file is the define:

%global _rpmfilename noarch/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}%{?dist}.rpm

I hope this is fine. I need it this way so that I can have a generic
tar.gz source file and build dist specific rpm from that.

Parag I will work on reviewing packages.

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

--- Comment #8 from Niels de Vos  ---
(In reply to Sachidananda Urs from comment #7)
> I'll request to upload the srpm to a publicly accessible location.
> The change I'm not confident in the spec file is the define:
>
> %global _rpmfilename noarch/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}%{?dist}.rpm
>
> I hope this is fine. I need it this way so that I can have a generic
> tar.gz source file and build dist specific rpm from that.

I do not understand why this is needed. Could you explain your workflow that
requires this? We may be able to suggest an alternative approach.

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

Parag AN(पराग)  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Assignee|[e-mail]          |[e-mail]
              Flags|fedora-review?              |

--- Comment #9 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
I was away for a week for some conference. Reading this review updates now.

Ken, I see you also offered to sponsor Sachidananda and he has actually
responded to your comment and provided update for this package.

I think I will now prefer you to continue this package review and sponsorship
to Sachidananda.

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

--- Comment #10 from Sachidananda Urs  ---
(In reply to Niels de Vos from comment #8)
> (In reply to Sachidananda Urs from comment #7)
> > I'll request to upload the srpm to a publicly accessible location.
> > The change I'm not confident in the spec file is the define:
> >
> > %global _rpmfilename noarch/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}%{?dist}.rpm
> >
> > I hope this is fine. I need it this way so that I can have a generic
> > tar.gz source file and build dist specific rpm from that.
>
> I do not understand why this is needed. Could you explain your workflow that
> requires this? We may be able to suggest an alternative approach.

So when I build RPMs I would like to have
gdeploy-<version>-release-{fc24,el7,el6}.rpm ... 
And I would like to keep the tar ball gdeploy-<version>-release.tar.gz

I don't want to create a tag for every dist.

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

--- Comment #11 from Ken Dreyer  ---
It seems like you're mixing the Release value and Version values here?

Release is a number that is "downstream" (Fedora) only. Other Fedora
maintainers, like ProvenPackagers or Fedora rel-eng, will sometimes bump this
Release integer, so it's not something you can completely keep in sync between
Fedora downstream and Gluster upstream.

It would be best to avoid having the Release number in your upstream tarballs.
To put it another way, "v%{version}-%{release}.tar.gz" should just be
"v%{version}.tar.gz"

The "/usr/local/bin/gluster-replace-node" file should not be in /usr/local (see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#No_Files_or_Directories_...)

The license seems unclear here, because the "LICENSE" file from upstream is the
GPLv2, but the .spec here says GPLv3. Which is it? Also, the LICENSE file
should be included in the package, via the %license directive.

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

--- Comment #12 from Ken Dreyer  ---
Would you please post raw direct links to the latest .spec and .src.rpm so that
the fedora-review tool can process them?

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

--- Comment #13 from Sachidananda Urs  ---
(In reply to Ken Dreyer from comment #11)
> It seems like you're mixing the Release value and Version values here?
>
> Release is a number that is "downstream" (Fedora) only. Other Fedora
> maintainers, like ProvenPackagers or Fedora rel-eng, will sometimes bump
> this Release integer, so it's not something you can completely keep in sync
> between Fedora downstream and Gluster upstream.
>
> It would be best to avoid having the Release number in your upstream
> tarballs. To put it another way, "v%{version}-%{release}.tar.gz" should just
> be "v%{version}.tar.gz"

I'll fix that.
> The "/usr/local/bin/gluster-replace-node" file should not be in /usr/local
> (see
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:
> Guidelines#No_Files_or_Directories_under_.2Fsrv.2C_.2Fusr.2Flocal.2C_or_.
> 2Fhome.2F.24USER)
>
> The license seems unclear here, because the "LICENSE" file from upstream is
> the GPLv2, but the .spec here says GPLv3. Which is it? Also, the LICENSE
> file should be included in the package, via the %license directive.

Ack! I will fix these and update.

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #14 from [e-mail] ---
This is un-official review of/comment on the package...

Just to be clear, is this intended to be version 2.1 or 2.0.1? Just a quick
glance, but I don't see any mention of 2.1 or a 2.1 branch on the upstream
github.

The updated spec file is obviously for 2.0.1.

I get:

ERROR: 'No srpm found for gdeploy' (logs in
/home/thomas/.cache/fedora-review.log)

when I run `fedora-review  -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -n gdeploy` on the
downloaded spec file and source RPM.

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

--- Comment #15 from Ken Dreyer  ---
Sac, would you please post raw direct links to the latest .spec and .src.rpm so
that the fedora-review tool can process them? The previous link for the .spec
was to GitHub's web UI, and fedora-review needs the raw file.

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

--- Comment #16 from Sachidananda Urs  ---
(In reply to Ken Dreyer from comment #15)
> Sac, would you please post raw direct links to the latest .spec and .src.rpm
> so that the fedora-review tool can process them? The previous link for the
> .spec was to GitHub's web UI, and fedora-review needs the raw file.

Ken, sure will do that.

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

--- Comment #17 from Sachidananda Urs  ---
(In reply to tserlin from comment #14)
> This is un-official review of/comment on the package...
>
> Just to be clear, is this intended to be version 2.1 or 2.0.1? Just a quick
> glance, but I don't see any mention of 2.1 or a 2.1 branch on the upstream
> github.
>
> The updated spec file is obviously for 2.0.1.
>
> I get:
>
> ERROR: 'No srpm found for gdeploy' (logs in
> /home/thomas/.cache/fedora-review.log)
>
> when I run `fedora-review  -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -n gdeploy` on the
> downloaded spec file and source RPM.

It is 2.0.1 and I will make the changes suggested by Ken and update the bug
with the details.

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

--- Comment #18 from Sachidananda Urs  ---
SRPM URL:
https://download.gluster.org/pub/gluster/gdeploy/gdeploy-2.0.1-3.src.rpm
SPEC URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gluster/gdeploy/master/gdeploy.spec

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

--- Comment #19 from Ken Dreyer  ---
%global gdeploytemp /usr/share/ansible/gdeploy
- Instead of "/usr/share/ansible/gdeploy", why not use "/usr/share/gdeploy"?
Putting the files under another package's namespace (ansible) could lead to
problems in the future.
- Please use the %{_datadir} macro here instead of /usr/share.

%global gdeploydoc /usr/share/doc/gdeploy
- Please use the %{_pkgdocdir} macro and eliminate %{gdeploydoc}.

install -m 755 extras/usecases/replace-node/gluster-replace-node \
        %{buildroot}/usr/bin
- Do you need to make %{buildroot}/usr/bin here?, or does the earlier "setup.py
install" command already create that directory for you?

/usr/bin/gluster-replace-node
- Please use the %{_bindir} macro here

%global _rpmfilename noarch/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}%{?dist}.rpm
I don't think this line is needed.

%description
- "and lot more" -> "and more" (grammar fix)

%autosetup -n %{name}-%{version}
- %{name}-%{version} is the default already, no need to specify it here.

The "cp" and "install" statements do not preserve timestamps. Please use the
"-p" options.

Please review some other packages

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

--- Comment #20 from Sachidananda Urs  ---
> install -m 755 extras/usecases/replace-node/gluster-replace-node \
>         %{buildroot}/usr/bin
> Do you need to make %{buildroot}/usr/bin here?, or does the earlier
>
> "setup.py install" command already create that directory for you?

I do run mkdir before running install.
> %global _rpmfilename noarch/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}%{?dist}.rpm
> I don't think this line is needed.

I wanted the rpm to be created with version-release and dist name. 
Because by default noarch is added. For example:

gdeploy-2.0.1-3.el7rhgs.rpm
gdeploy-2.0.1-3.noarch.rpm

What is the convention?

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

--- Comment #21 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
(In reply to Sachidananda Urs from comment #20)
> > install -m 755 extras/usecases/replace-node/gluster-replace-node \
> >         %{buildroot}/usr/bin
> > Do you need to make %{buildroot}/usr/bin here?, or does the earlier
> >
> > "setup.py install" command already create that directory for you?
>
> I do run mkdir before running install.
> > %global _rpmfilename noarch/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}%{?dist}.rpm
> > I don't think this line is needed.
>
> I wanted the rpm to be created with version-release and dist name. 
> Because by default noarch is added. For example:
>
> gdeploy-2.0.1-3.el7rhgs.rpm
> gdeploy-2.0.1-3.noarch.rpm
>
> What is the convention?

To not override RPM things.

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

--- Comment #22 from Sachidananda Urs  ---
> Please review some other packages

I've started to do unofficial reviews:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1402656
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1406786
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1030968

Will do more detailed reviews.

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

--- Comment #23 from Sachidananda Urs  ---
Incorporated Ken's comments:

SPEC URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gluster/gdeploy/master/gdeploy.spec
SRPM URL:
https://download.gluster.org/pub/gluster/gdeploy/gdeploy-2.0.1-4.src.rpm

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

Sandro Bonazzola  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|                            |needinfo?(ktdreyer@ktdreyer
                   |                            |.com)

--- Comment #24 from Sandro Bonazzola  ---
Ken, can you please review comment #23 changes?

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

--- Comment #25 from Sandro Bonazzola  ---
Ken?

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

--- Comment #26 from Eyal Edri  ---
Any update on accepting the gdeploy package? any more actions are required?

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

Niels de Vos  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |NEW
           Assignee|[e-mail]       |[e-mail]
              Flags|needinfo?(ktdreyer@ktdreyer |
                   |.com)                       |

--- Comment #27 from Niels de Vos  ---
Following
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews#Reviewer_n...
and resetting the status of the review back to the defaults.

Comment #23 contains a mostly reviewed status of the package. Reviewing this
should be straight forward now (Sac needs a sponsor too).

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

--- Comment #28 from Ken Dreyer  ---
Please accept my apologies for the delay and lack of communication! That is
bad.

I can continue the review or let someone else take it.

Looks like the LICENSE file should be listed as %license under %files.

Would you please use the newer %py2_build and %py2_install macros?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python

Can this package work with Python 3 instead of Python 2? Maybe it would be a
good idea to add a comment to the .spec file explaining why this will not work
with Python 3 if that is the case.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FinalizingFedoraSwitchtoPython3 is coming
eventually. You could conditionalize py2/py3 with "%if %{?rhel} < 8" if you
want to share the same .spec file across RHEL 7 and Fedora.

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

--- Comment #29 from Sachidananda Urs  ---
(In reply to Ken Dreyer from comment #28)
> Please accept my apologies for the delay and lack of communication! That is
> bad.
>
> I can continue the review or let someone else take it.
>
> Looks like the LICENSE file should be listed as %license under %files.
>
> Would you please use the newer %py2_build and %py2_install macros?
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
>
> Can this package work with Python 3 instead of Python 2? Maybe it would be a
> good idea to add a comment to the .spec file explaining why this will not
> work with Python 3 if that is the case.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FinalizingFedoraSwitchtoPython3 is coming
> eventually. You could conditionalize py2/py3 with "%if %{?rhel} < 8" if you
> want to share the same .spec file across RHEL 7 and Fedora.

Ack! Will do that.

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

Paulo Andrade  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr
                   |                            |[e-mail]
           Assignee|[e-mail]    |paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr
                   |                            |[e-mail]
              Flags|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #30 from Paulo Andrade  ---
Taking for review.

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

--- Comment #31 from Paulo Andrade  ---
Links are confusing.
The https://download.gluster.org/pub/gluster/gdeploy/gdeploy.spec
file is very outdated.
The actual srpm is
https://download.gluster.org/pub/gluster/gdeploy/gdeploy-2.0.2-13.src.rpm

Spec from link differs from spec in srpm. Changelog is missing
from -5 to -13 in the srpm. From the link jumps to -4 to -13.

Tested downloading the src.rpm and running:
$ fedora-review -r -n gdeploy

I suggest you to install the fedora-review package, and test
yourself running:
$ fedora-review -b 1344276

This way you can see most if not all details a reviewer will
talk about :)

* Please update the bug report with matching SRPM URL and SPEC URL.
  Also make sure src.rpm spec matches spec in SPEC url.

* License does not match. There are several GPLv3+ licensed files
  in the tarball.
  Apparently, should use "License: GPLv2+ and GPLv3+"
  File gdeployrest/gdeployapi.py is GPLv3+ with incorrect FSF address.

* Documentation should be built with sphinx. Not install sources, e.g.
  in build have:
  pushd doc
    make html
  popd

* Documentation should be in a separate -doc package. It is already
  large in source format, and will be larger in html format.

* Upstream source is not available:

https://github.com/gluster/gdeploy/archive/v2.0.2.tar.gz#/gdeploy-2.0.2.tar....
  Latest from github is 2.0.1.

* Please either add a %check section and run the script in the tests
  directory, or give a good reason for not to. Usually, just loading
  the python files is enough to detect issues on other architectures,
  or other "random" issues.

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

Sachidananda Urs  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #32 from Sachidananda Urs  ---
(In reply to Paulo Andrade from comment #31)
> Links are confusing.
> The https://download.gluster.org/pub/gluster/gdeploy/gdeploy.spec
> file is very outdated.
> The actual srpm is
> https://download.gluster.org/pub/gluster/gdeploy/gdeploy-2.0.2-13.src.rpm

Sorry about that.

SPEC URL: http://thegaul.org/gdeploy/gdeploy.spec
SRPM URL: http://thegaul.org/gdeploy/gdeploy-2.0.2-13.src.rpm

I'll keep them consistent.
> Spec from link differs from spec in srpm. Changelog is missing
> from -5 to -13 in the srpm. From the link jumps to -4 to -13.

Fixed.
> Tested downloading the src.rpm and running:
> $ fedora-review -r -n gdeploy
>
> I suggest you to install the fedora-review package, and test
> yourself running:
> $ fedora-review -b 1344276

fedora-review does not report anything alarming. Except few complaints on
missing shebang which I think is fine.
> This way you can see most if not all details a reviewer will
> talk about :)
> Please update the bug report with matching SRPM URL and SPEC URL.
> Also make sure src.rpm spec matches spec in SPEC url.

Done. They match now.
> License does not match. There are several GPLv3+ licensed files
> in the tarball.
> Apparently, should use "License: GPLv2+ and GPLv3+"
> File gdeployrest/gdeployapi.py is GPLv3+ with incorrect FSF address.

Fixed.
> Documentation should be built with sphinx. Not install sources, e.g.
> in build have:
> pushd doc
>   make html
> popd

Done. This is a good idea, thanks.
> Documentation should be in a separate -doc package. It is already
> large in source format, and will be larger in html format.

gdeploy is now split into gdeploy and gdepoy-doc packages.
> Upstream source is not available:
>
> https://github.com/gluster/gdeploy/archive/v2.0.2.tar.gz#/gdeploy-2.0.2.tar.
> gz
>   Latest from github is 2.0.1.

Fixed this.
> Please either add a %check section and run the script in the tests
> directory, or give a good reason for not to. Usually, just loading
> the python files is enough to detect issues on other architectures,
> or other "random" issues.

The tests are not complete, they are outdated and not maintained. Plan
to fix this in future releases. Request an exception for this.

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

--- Comment #33 from Paulo Andrade  ---
Package Review
==============

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

Issues:
=======
- Dist tag is present.

===== 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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "*No copyright* GPL (v3 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)",
     "Unknown or generated". 333 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/pcpa/1344276-gdeploy/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (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.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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).
[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.
[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 uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[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 does not use a name that already exists.
[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

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:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in gdeploy-
     doc
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

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

Generic:
[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: gdeploy-2.0.2-13.noarch.rpm
          gdeploy-doc-2.0.2-13.noarch.rpm
          gdeploy-2.0.2-13.src.rpm
gdeploy.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/bin/gluster-replace-node
/usr/bin/env bash
gdeploy.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ansible/modules/gdeploy/README.md
gdeploy.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ansible/modules/gdeploy/__init__.py
gdeploy.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ansible/plugins/callback/gdeploy.py
gdeploy.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/share/gdeploy/scripts/blacklist_all_disks.sh /usr/bin/env bash
gdeploy.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/share/gdeploy/scripts/disable-gluster-hooks.sh /usr/bin/env bash
gdeploy.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/share/gdeploy/scripts/disable-multipath.sh /usr/bin/env bash
gdeploy.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/share/gdeploy/scripts/grafton-sanity-check.sh /usr/bin/env bash
gdeploy.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/share/gdeploy/usecases/nuke-bricks/nuke-bricks.sh /usr/bin/env bash -u
gdeploy.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/gdeploy/usecases/nuke-bricks/nuke-bricks.sh 644 /usr/bin/env bash -u
gdeploy.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/share/gdeploy/usecases/replace-node/gluster-replace-node /usr/bin/env bash
gdeploy.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/share/gdeploy/usecases/replace-node/replace_prep.sh /usr/bin/env bash
gdeploy.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gluster-replace-node
gdeploy-doc.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C gdeploy documentation
gdeploy-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/doc/gdeploy/html/.buildinfo
gdeploy.src: W: file-size-mismatch gdeploy-2.0.2.tar.gz = 1951206,
https://github.com/gluster/gdeploy/archive/v2.0.2.tar.gz#/gdeploy-2.0.2.tar....
= 1951712
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 12 errors, 4 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
gdeploy-doc.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C gdeploy documentation
gdeploy-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/doc/gdeploy/html/.buildinfo
gdeploy.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/share/gdeploy/usecases/replace-node/gluster-replace-node /usr/bin/env bash
gdeploy.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/share/gdeploy/usecases/nuke-bricks/nuke-bricks.sh /usr/bin/env bash -u
gdeploy.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/gdeploy/usecases/nuke-bricks/nuke-bricks.sh 644 /usr/bin/env bash -u
gdeploy.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ansible/modules/gdeploy/__init__.py
gdeploy.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ansible/plugins/callback/gdeploy.py
gdeploy.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/share/gdeploy/scripts/grafton-sanity-check.sh /usr/bin/env bash
gdeploy.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/share/gdeploy/scripts/disable-multipath.sh /usr/bin/env bash
gdeploy.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/share/gdeploy/usecases/replace-node/replace_prep.sh /usr/bin/env bash
gdeploy.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/share/gdeploy/scripts/disable-gluster-hooks.sh /usr/bin/env bash
gdeploy.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/bin/gluster-replace-node
/usr/bin/env bash
gdeploy.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/share/gdeploy/scripts/blacklist_all_disks.sh /usr/bin/env bash
gdeploy.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ansible/modules/gdeploy/README.md
gdeploy.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gluster-replace-node
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 12 errors, 3 warnings.

Requires
--------
gdeploy-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

gdeploy (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/env
    /usr/bin/python
    /usr/bin/python2
    PyYAML
    ansible
    lvm2
    python(abi)
    python2

Provides
--------
gdeploy-doc:
    gdeploy-doc

gdeploy:
    gdeploy

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/gluster/gdeploy/archive/v2.0.2.tar.gz#/gdeploy-2.0.2.tar....
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
cf6c600ba97fd32c183e08efa2c96ed9762c5523cf89372662ce0bc81e61ca8c
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
58088f0c8dc0d2496f7d8a52bfb4156b874927be68b849e8a63ed6e659e4d44b
However, diff -r shows no differences

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1344276
Buildroot used: fedora-24-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R,
PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

---

AFAIK there is no policy to the format you used for the doc
subpackage, that is, %package and %files in a "single chunk".
Personally, I used this pattern before for some packages with
a lot of subpackages.

I believe the package is good and most issues have been reasoned,
but will ask for two extra changes before approving the package and
sponsoring you:

o Use the same tarball in the srpm and upstream. I believe the 
  upstream tarball was regenerated, thus difference checksum, as
  contents are the same.
o Do a minor license breakdown about the installed GPLv3 files.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/Li...
  Otherwise, it should not be required to also install a GPLv3 license file.

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

--- Comment #34 from Sachidananda Urs  ---
> I believe the package is good and most issues have been reasoned,
> but will ask for two extra changes before approving the package and
> sponsoring you:
>
> o Use the same tarball in the srpm and upstream. I believe the 
>   upstream tarball was regenerated, thus difference checksum, as
>   contents are the same.

Ack! Will do that.
> o Do a minor license breakdown about the installed GPLv3 files.
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/
> LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios
>   Otherwise, it should not be required to also install a GPLv3 license file.

Paulo, I need a bit of help here, regarding the license. The LICENSE file
says GPLv2 however none of the source files actually are version 2. This
mismatch
has happened somewhere earlier in the project because it was overlooked.

I would like to replace the GPLv2 LICENSE file with v3 and continue with v3 in
future. Can you advice if it is fine?

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

--- Comment #35 from Paulo Andrade  ---
  The easiest approach would be to make a new release, and
change the files to use GPLv3+. But you would need to ask
all contributors to agree to it. Likely just one line
replacement of /2/3/ for the files under GPLv2+.

Files without a license header use the LICENSE file. But
IANAL, and this could be contested. But I do not suggest
patching the files to add a license header, as most if not
all are kind of trivial or non distributed files.

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

--- Comment #36 from Sachidananda Urs  ---
(In reply to Paulo Andrade from comment #35)
> The easiest approach would be to make a new release, and
> change the files to use GPLv3+. But you would need to ask
> all contributors to agree to it. Likely just one line
> replacement of /2/3/ for the files under GPLv2+.

I will make a new release and change the files to GPLv3+. I spoke
to the contributor and have consent. Will upload the new spec and
sprm file. Thanks again.
> Files without a license header use the LICENSE file. But
> IANAL, and this could be contested. But I do not suggest
> patching the files to add a license header, as most if not
> all are kind of trivial or non distributed files.

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

--- Comment #37 from Sachidananda Urs  ---
I've fixed both the changes mentioned in Comment #35

SPEC URL: http://thegaul.org/gdeploy/gdeploy.spec
SRPM URL: http://thegaul.org/gdeploy/gdeploy-2.0.2-14.src.rpm

* Now the md5sums match
* LICENSE file updated

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

Paulo Andrade  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #38 from Paulo Andrade  ---
Package is approved!

Before pushing it, please add a changelog entry for
-14 release and check/confirm if *.py under
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ansible/plugins
should really be executable (looks like not...)

Please confirm your FAS account name so i can
proceed to sponsor you.

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

--- Comment #39 from Sachidananda Urs  ---
(In reply to Paulo Andrade from comment #38)
> Package is approved!
>
> Before pushing it, please add a changelog entry for
> -14 release and

My mistake. Fixed the latest commit.

check/confirm if *.py under
> /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ansible/plugins
> should really be executable (looks like not...)

Yep, does not really need the execute permission. 
I've updated the spec, now installs the file with mode 644.
> Please confirm your FAS account name so i can
> proceed to sponsor you.

My FAS account name is: sac

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

--- Comment #40 from Paulo Andrade  ---
Welcome as a Fedora Packager!

I suggest following the procedures starting at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Add_P...
to add the package.

I also suggest using your gmail account for Fedora bugzilla
issues, as it is the email associated with your FAS account.

If you have any issues feel free to ping me in irc, nickname
pcpa, or send me an email.

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

--- Comment #41 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
I am glad that this has finally finished.

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

--- Comment #43 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gdeploy

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

--- Comment #42 from Sachidananda Urs  ---
(In reply to Paulo Andrade from comment #40)
> Welcome as a Fedora Packager!
>
> I suggest following the procedures starting at
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/
> Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Add_Package_to_Source_Code_Management
> _.28SCM.29_system_and_Set_Owner
> to add the package.
>
> I also suggest using your gmail account for Fedora bugzilla
> issues, as it is the email associated with your FAS account.

Sure.
> If you have any issues feel free to ping me in irc, nickname
> pcpa, or send me an email.

Thank you. I've raised a request to add the package.

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

--- Comment #44 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The sync took place when you logged in the first time.

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

--- Comment #46 from Fedora Update System  ---
gdeploy-2.0.2-14.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-948d6d6dfc

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

Fedora Update System  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |ON_QA

--- Comment #45 from Fedora Update System  ---
gdeploy-2.0.2-14.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-388358a44d

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

Fedora Update System  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ON_QA                       |CLOSED
         Resolution|---                         |ERRATA
        Last Closed|                            |2017-09-09 19:51:46

--- Comment #47 from Fedora Update System  ---
gdeploy-2.0.2-14.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

--- Comment #48 from Fedora Update System  ---
gdeploy-2.0.2-14.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.