[Bug 1150504] New: Review Request: openstack-ironic-discoverd - hardware properties discovery daemon for OpenStack Ironic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150504
Bug ID: 1150504 Summary: Review Request: openstack-ironic-discoverd - hardware properties discovery daemon for OpenStack Ironic Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: divius.inside@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1730743/ironic-discoverd/openstack-ironi... SRPM URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1730743/ironic-discoverd/openstack-ironi... Description: Simple hardware properties discovery daemon for use with OpenStack Ironic. Provides API endpoints for the discovery process and manages iptables rules. Is designed for use within TripleO, currently under review in Instack: https://github.com/agroup/instack-undercloud/pull/41 Fedora Account System Username: divius
I am an upstream developer of ironic-discoverd package. This is my first package, so I need a sponsor. Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7798841
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150504
Dmitry Tantsur divius.inside@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150504
--- Comment #1 from Dmitry Tantsur divius.inside@gmail.com --- rpmlint output:
E: non-readable /etc/ironic-discoverd/discoverd.conf 0640L configuration file will contain a password, so it should not be readable by anyone.
W: no-manual-page-for-binary ironic-discoverd not sure about this one, the man page is included, and `man ironic-discoverd` works as expected after installing resulting RPM.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150504
Haïkel Guémar karlthered@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |karlthered@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |karlthered@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150504
--- Comment #2 from Haïkel Guémar karlthered@gmail.com --- As part of the sponsoring process, I will ask to do two informal reviews: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1148529 + one taken from this list http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html (preferably non-green ones)
I suggest you look at the fedora-review tool to assist you and Fedora Packaging Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
This is to assess your understanding of packaging and our guidelines, as until you're sponsored, I can't approve yet your package (which should be fast)
When you're done, please link the two reviews here and set the needinfo flag
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150504
--- Comment #3 from Dmitry Tantsur divius.inside@gmail.com --- First review ready, second to go soon: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1148529#c1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150504
Dmitry Tantsur divius.inside@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(karlthered@gmail. | |com)
--- Comment #4 from Dmitry Tantsur divius.inside@gmail.com --- The second: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109717#c7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150504
Haïkel Guémar karlthered@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(karlthered@gmail. | |com) |
--- Comment #5 from Haïkel Guémar karlthered@gmail.com --- ACK for both reviews, that should be good :) Since you told me that you're gonna roll up a new release soon, I'll wait the spec/srpm update for the formal review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150504
--- Comment #6 from Dmitry Tantsur divius.inside@gmail.com --- Thank you! Here is packaging for the new version: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1730743/ironic-discoverd/openstack-ironi... https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1730743/ironic-discoverd/openstack-ironi...
Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7858842 RPM tested on my local instack installation.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150504
--- Comment #7 from Haïkel Guémar karlthered@gmail.com --- * You should remove bundled eggs-info in %prep * I suggest you use the %license tag to mark license files (For the record, since packaging guidelines has not been updated, you may read the FPC ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/411) ATM, I suggest that you add the fallback macro (required on EL6) %{?!_licensedir:%global license %%doc} %license LICENSE
Except that, it should be good.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150504
--- Comment #8 from Dmitry Tantsur divius.inside@gmail.com --- Done, links are the same. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1730743/ironic-discoverd/openstack-ironi... https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1730743/ironic-discoverd/openstack-ironi...
New build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7863064
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150504
Haïkel Guémar karlthered@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from Haïkel Guémar karlthered@gmail.com --- Hi Dmitry, I sponsored you into the packaging group. Feel free to ask me any questions related to packaging or guidelines, that's also part of the sponsoring package :)
---
As this package complies with Fedora packaging guidelines, I hereby approve it. Please submit a SCM request.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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: "Unknown or generated". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/haikel/1150504-openstack- ironic-discoverd/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/licenses [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/licenses [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. [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. [-]: 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. [-]: 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. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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
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). [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. [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: [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: openstack-ironic-discoverd-0.2.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm openstack-ironic-discoverd-0.2.0-1.fc22.src.rpm openstack-ironic-discoverd.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/ironic-discoverd/discoverd.conf 0640L 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint openstack-ironic-discoverd openstack-ironic-discoverd.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/ironic-discoverd/discoverd.conf 0640L 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- openstack-ironic-discoverd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/python2 config(openstack-ironic-discoverd) python(abi) python-eventlet python-flask python-ironicclient python-keystoneclient python-requests python-six systemd
Provides -------- openstack-ironic-discoverd: config(openstack-ironic-discoverd) openstack-ironic-discoverd
Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/i/ironic-discoverd/ironic-discoverd-... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d01cae6490859bb06c1dec9de594e31a7f3e6a9bbe26e63821f59bd64154e6e7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d01cae6490859bb06c1dec9de594e31a7f3e6a9bbe26e63821f59bd64154e6e7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150504
Dmitry Tantsur divius.inside@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #10 from Dmitry Tantsur divius.inside@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: openstack-ironic-discoverd Short Description: Hardware discovery daemon for OpenStack Ironic Upstream URL: https://github.com/Divius/ironic-discoverd Owners: divius Branches: InitialCC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150504
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150504
--- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150504
--- Comment #12 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- social's scratch build of openstack-puppet-modules?#db4e135626252ebf0b23b8a0e6e98ce0dcf2f9e6 for git://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/openstack-puppet-modules?#db4e135626252ebf0b23b8a0e6e98ce0dcf2f9e6 and rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11426591
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150504
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed| |2017-09-15 14:21:55
--- Comment #13 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu --- Not sure why this is still open; the package was imported and then retired.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com -
Red Hat Bugzilla