[Bug 913296] New: Review Request: salt-api - An API to the salt management and remote execution system
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913296
Bug ID: 913296 Summary: Review Request: salt-api - An API to the salt management and remote execution system Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: andrewniemants@gmail.com
Spec URL: http://kaptk2.fedorapeople.org/salt-api.spec SRPM URL: http://kaptk2.fedorapeople.org/salt-api-0.7.5-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: salt-api is a modular interface on top of Salt that can provide a variety of entry points into a running Salt system. It can start and manage multiple interfaces allowing a REST API to coexist with XMLRPC or even a Websocket API. Fedora Account System Username: kaptk2
Addtional Info: Koji build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5037974
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913296
Clint Savage herlo1@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |herlo1@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |herlo1@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913296
--- Comment #1 from Clint Savage herlo1@gmail.com --- Attempting to run fedora-review against this package provides me with failures. I decided to run it in mock to see what errors I might find. To my surprise, I found the following:
$ mock -vr fedora-18-x86_64 --rebuild /home/herlo/913296-salt-api/srpm/salt-api-0.7.5-1.fc18.src.rpm
..snip..
DEBUG: + /usr/bin/python setup.py install -O1 --root /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/salt-api-0.7.5-1.fc18.x86_64 DEBUG: /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.PPwIP4: line 35: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
It looks like you have no BuildRequires or BRs. BRs are used when building an rpm, a Require (or R) is a dependency that will be installed when the package is installed (via yum or rpm).
To that end, I would suggest at least the following BRs:
salt (this package also BRs python, so you'll get python there)
I'm checking to see if there are other deps, but this might be good enough for now.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913296
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Niemantsverdriet andrewniemants@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #1)
Attempting to run fedora-review against this package provides me with failures. I decided to run it in mock to see what errors I might find. To my surprise, I found the following:
$ mock -vr fedora-18-x86_64 --rebuild /home/herlo/913296-salt-api/srpm/salt-api-0.7.5-1.fc18.src.rpm
..snip..
DEBUG: + /usr/bin/python setup.py install -O1 --root /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/salt-api-0.7.5-1.fc18.x86_64 DEBUG: /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.PPwIP4: line 35: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
It looks like you have no BuildRequires or BRs. BRs are used when building an rpm, a Require (or R) is a dependency that will be installed when the package is installed (via yum or rpm).
To that end, I would suggest at least the following BRs:
salt (this package also BRs python, so you'll get python there)
I'm checking to see if there are other deps, but this might be good enough for now.
Updated .spec file at the URL provided above to reflect requested changes.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913296
--- Comment #3 from Clint Savage herlo1@gmail.com --- Here's the output of fedora-review
Package Review ==============
Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= [!]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires
===== 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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: 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. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python: [!]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep [x]: 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. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [ ]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed [ ]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [-]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [?]: 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. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define. Note: %define pybasever 2.6 %define __python_ver 26 %define __python %{_bindir}/python%{?pybasever}
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: salt-api-0.7.5-1.fc18.src.rpm salt-api-0.7.5-1.fc18.noarch.rpm salt-api.src: W: file-size-mismatch salt-api-0.7.5.tar.gz = 40960, http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/s/salt-api/salt-api-0.7.5.tar.gz = 33401 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint salt-api 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- salt-api-0.7.5-1.fc18.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/sh /usr/bin/python python(abi) = 2.7 python-cherrypy salt systemd-units
Provides -------- salt-api-0.7.5-1.fc18.noarch.rpm:
salt-api = 0.7.5-1.fc18
MD5-sum check ------------- http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/s/salt-api/salt-api-0.7.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 74319ecc34f7f90888307c8c91e20d68c65b3fa7dbe19e2c1660ab5c0414069d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5057c2468aea492607addf694033f8d36796cf55bfd6ff7abfc277842edb51a1 However, diff -r shows no differences
Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16 Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 913296
-------------------------------------------
The review shows a couple concerns, one is the desire for python2-devel. I'm not sure that's required here, since it seems that salt also doesn't require this library. But the https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires suggests this is necessary. I will do a bit of legwork here to confirm it is indeed required.
Additionally, the tarball checksum doesn't match the upstream tarball. However, the diff above shows no differences. I'm guessing this is because you created your own tarball. When I build my rpms, I do a simple wget to the SOURCES directory to ensure I have the current upstream tarball.
I performed a review of the spec file as well and suggest cleaning up trailing spaces from your description lines.
-------------------------------------------
cat rpmlint.txt Checking: salt-api-0.7.5-1.fc18.src.rpm salt-api-0.7.5-1.fc18.noarch.rpm salt-api.src: W: file-size-mismatch salt-api-0.7.5.tar.gz = 40960, http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/s/salt-api/salt-api-0.7.5.tar.gz = 33401 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913296
Thomas Spura tomspur@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tomspur@fedoraproject.org
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Spura tomspur@fedoraproject.org --- (In reply to comment #2)
Updated .spec file at the URL provided above to reflect requested changes.
Please always bump the release, write in the changelog what you changed and provide new links here.
(In reply to comment #3)
The review shows a couple concerns, one is the desire for python2-devel. I'm not sure that's required here, since it seems that salt also doesn't require this library. But the https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires suggests this is necessary. I will do a bit of legwork here to confirm it is indeed required.
All python packages must require that by definition. This way it's ensured, that /usr/bin/python and all headers are installed, in case it isn't a noarch package. In this case a BR on python would be sufficient, but we defined in the Guidelines to BR python?-devel nevertheless.
Additionally, the tarball checksum doesn't match the upstream tarball. However, the diff above shows no differences. I'm guessing this is because you created your own tarball. When I build my rpms, I do a simple wget to the SOURCES directory to ensure I have the current upstream tarball.
I normally do a "spectool -g $specfile" to get the sources.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913296
--- Comment #5 from Clint Savage herlo1@gmail.com --- Thomas,
Thanks for your comments. It's interesting because when you approved salt, i didn't have python?-devel as a BR. I'll make sure to add it in the next version. However, maybe that's a newish requirement for python pages?
Haven't played with spectool, thanks for the tip!
Andrew,
I agree with Thomas on bumping the release. I forgot to mention this previously, so it's probably good to update your spec and srpm now and post the update here.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913296
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Spura tomspur@fedoraproject.org --- (In reply to comment #5)
Thanks for your comments. It's interesting because when you approved salt, i didn't have python?-devel as a BR. I'll make sure to add it in the next version. However, maybe that's a newish requirement for python pages?
Hmm, then I should have missed it there. It only changed from python-devel to python2-devel not too long ago, but I believe the BR on python-devel was there long before. When looking at the git logs, that was already added with the initial import: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/salt.git/commit/?id=bfbe7b1cb0e711e0e1324...
So it should just change to python2-devel instead of python-devel sometime. But as we won't switch to python3 soon, it's not an urgent issue for old packages.
Haven't played with spectool, thanks for the tip!
You're welcome :)
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913296
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Niemantsverdriet andrewniemants@gmail.com --- Spec URL: http://kaptk2.fedorapeople.org/salt-api.spec SRPM URL: http://kaptk2.fedorapeople.org/salt-api-0.7.5-1.fc18.src.rpm
Updated the .spec and SRPM as suggested by the comments
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913296
--- Comment #8 from Clint Savage herlo1@gmail.com --- Andrew,
You need to increment the the Release value and update your changelog to match.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913296
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Niemantsverdriet andrewniemants@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #8)
Andrew,
You need to increment the the Release value and update your changelog to match.
Spec URL: http://kaptk2.fedorapeople.org/salt-api.spec SRPM URL: http://kaptk2.fedorapeople.org/salt-api-0.7.5-2.fc18.src.rpm
Sorry fixed now.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913296
--- Comment #10 from Clint Savage herlo1@gmail.com --- Your changelog should detail the changes. Seeing as this document will likely have more suggestions, I wouldn't point to a link about the review :)
If you do want to put a pointer to an issue, you can do something like (RHBZ#913296), for instance. It's a very common shorthand.
I've run the fedora-review again and the suggestions we made look good, otherwise.
Thomas, do you have any other suggestions? And are you a packager sponsor? Andrew is going to need one as I am just doing the review.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913296
--- Comment #11 from Clint Savage herlo1@gmail.com --- Oh, I missed that Andrew is already a packager. Never mind on the sponsor part.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913296
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Niemantsverdriet andrewniemants@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #10)
Your changelog should detail the changes. Seeing as this document will likely have more suggestions, I wouldn't point to a link about the review :)
If you do want to put a pointer to an issue, you can do something like (RHBZ#913296), for instance. It's a very common shorthand.
I've run the fedora-review again and the suggestions we made look good, otherwise.
Thomas, do you have any other suggestions? And are you a packager sponsor? Andrew is going to need one as I am just doing the review.
I have updated the change log and uploaded new files.
Spec URL: http://kaptk2.fedorapeople.org/salt-api.spec SRPM URL: http://kaptk2.fedorapeople.org/salt-api-0.7.5-3.fc18.src.rpm
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913296
--- Comment #13 from Thomas Spura tomspur@fedoraproject.org --- (In reply to comment #10)
Thomas, do you have any other suggestions?
No, all looks sane on a very brief look.
And are you a packager sponsor? Andrew is going to need one as I am just doing the review.
I already sponsored Andrew a while ago (and that's why I was watching this bug ;)).
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913296
Clint Savage herlo1@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #14 from Clint Savage herlo1@gmail.com --- Looks good, I'm approving this package. Good work Andrew!
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913296
Andrew Niemantsverdriet andrewniemants@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Niemantsverdriet andrewniemants@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: salt-api Short Description: salt-api is a modular interface on top of Salt that can provide a variety of entry points into a running Salt system. Owners: kaptk2 Branches: f16 f17 f18 el5 el6 InitialCC:
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913296
--- Comment #16 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913296
Andrew Niemantsverdriet andrewniemants@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2013-03-11 13:44:29
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla