[Bug 1925323] New: Review Request: google-compute-engine - Top-level package for enabling Google Compute Engine features
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925323
Bug ID: 1925323 Summary: Review Request: google-compute-engine - Top-level package for enabling Google Compute Engine features Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ericedens@google.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ericedens/gcp-guest-packa... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ericedens/gcp-guest-packa... Description: The Google Compute Engine guest environment is comprised of several packages; this package is the top-level package that a user would install, and that will be installed in the Google Compute Engine kickstart. Fedora Account System Username: ericedens
- This package depends on golang-github-googlecloudplatform-guest-agent, which is currently being reviewed: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925322 - Tested on Google Cloud Platform (verified SSH and startup script) - fedora-review passes:
fedora-review --copr-build 1945349 INFO: Processing COPR build: 1945349 INFO: Getting .spec, .srpm, .rpm INFO: --> SRPM url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ericedens/gcp-guest-packa... INFO: --> Spec url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ericedens/gcp-guest-packa... INFO: --> RPM urls: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ericedens/gcp-guest-packa... INFO: Using review directory: /home/ericedens/git/fedora-packages/copr-build-1945349/review-google-compute-engine INFO: Downloading .spec, .srpm, .rpm INFO: Downloading (Source0): https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/guest-configs/archive/20201207.00.tar... INFO: Running checks and generating report INFO: Installing built package(s) INFO: Install command returned error code 30 INFO: Reading configuration from /etc/mock/site-defaults.cfg INFO: Reading configuration from /etc/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64.cfg INFO: Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api INFO: ExclusiveArch dependency checking disabled, enable with EXARCH flag
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925323
ericedens ericedens@google.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment|0 |updated
--- Comment #0 has been edited ---
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ericedens/gcp-guest-packa... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ericedens/gcp-guest-packa... Description: The Google Compute Engine guest environment is comprised of several packages; this package is the top-level package that a user would install, and that will be installed in the Google Compute Engine kickstart. Fedora Account System Username: ericedens
- This package depends on golang-github-googlecloudplatform-guest-agent, which is currently being reviewed: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925322 - Tested on Google Cloud Platform (verified SSH and startup script) - fedora-review passes: `fedora-review --copr-build 1945349`
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925323
ericedens ericedens@google.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dustymabe@redhat.com, | |ngompa13@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925323
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Depends On| |1925322 Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |ngompa13@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925322 [Bug 1925322] Review Request: golang-github-googlecloudplatform-guest-agent - Guest agent for Google Cloud Platform
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925323
ericedens ericedens@google.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment|0 |updated
--- Comment #0 has been edited ---
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ericedens/gcp-guest-packa... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ericedens/gcp-guest-packa... Description: The Google Compute Engine guest environment is comprised of several packages; this package is the top-level package that a user would install, and that will be installed in the Google Compute Engine kickstart.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925323
--- Comment #1 from ericedens ericedens@google.com --- `fedora-review -b 1925323 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64`
This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ericedens/git/fedora-packages/google-compute- engine/1925323-google-compute-engine/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/dhcp/dhclient.d, /etc/dhcp [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. Note: No (noreplace) in %config /etc/dracut.conf.d/* %config /etc/modprobe.d/* [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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 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
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: 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: google-compute-engine-20201207.00-1.fc35.noarch.rpm google-compute-engine-20201207.00-1.fc35.src.rpm google-compute-engine.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US init -> unit, int, nit google-compute-engine.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 20201207.00 ['20201207.00-1.fc35', '20201207.00-1'] google-compute-engine.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib google-compute-engine.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/dracut.conf.d/gce.conf google-compute-engine.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/modprobe.d/gce-blacklist.conf google-compute-engine.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary google_optimize_local_ssd google-compute-engine.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary google_set_hostname google-compute-engine.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary google_set_multiqueue google-compute-engine.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US init -> unit, int, nit 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- google-compute-engine.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US init -> unit, int, nit google-compute-engine.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 20201207.00 ['20201207.00-1.fc35', '20201207.00-1'] google-compute-engine.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib google-compute-engine.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/dracut.conf.d/gce.conf google-compute-engine.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/modprobe.d/gce-blacklist.conf google-compute-engine.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary google_optimize_local_ssd google-compute-engine.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary google_set_hostname google-compute-engine.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary google_set_multiqueue 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/guest-configs/archive/20201207.00.tar... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b37df2e679e2e2fe5f113ab0f82c09ae4d7f4cb4a8dc0e5b47b01f32ff0726d0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b37df2e679e2e2fe5f113ab0f82c09ae4d7f4cb4a8dc0e5b47b01f32ff0726d0
Requires -------- google-compute-engine (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash config(google-compute-engine) dracut google-compute-engine-oslogin google-guest-agent nvme-cli rsyslog
Provides -------- google-compute-engine: config(google-compute-engine) google-compute-engine
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1925323 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, Perl, C/C++, Ocaml, Java, PHP, fonts, Haskell, SugarActivity, Python Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925323
--- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com ---
# Omit 'noreplace' since the values in these values are required for a system to run # correctly on Google Compute Engine. %config /etc/dracut.conf.d/* %config /etc/modprobe.d/*
If these aren't actually intended to be user-modifiable, you should probably install these into their /usr/lib counterparts:
%{_prefix}/lib/dracut/dracut.conf.d %{_prefix}/lib/modprobe.d
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925323
--- Comment #3 from ericedens ericedens@google.com --- If possible, it'd be nice to stay consistent with upstream. I did some research, and these two reference (seem to) support using `/etc`:
- "The /etc/ directory is reserved for configuration files that are local to the machine" on https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/14/html/Storage_Administration_G... - "Don’t use %config or %config(noreplace) under /usr. /usr is deemed to not contain configuration files in Fedora" on https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925323
--- Comment #4 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- (In reply to ericedens from comment #3)
If possible, it'd be nice to stay consistent with upstream. I did some research, and these two reference (seem to) support using `/etc`:
- "The /etc/ directory is reserved for configuration files that are local
to the machine" on https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/14/html/ Storage_Administration_Guide/s1-filesystem-fhs.html
- "Don’t use %config or %config(noreplace) under /usr. /usr is deemed to
not contain configuration files in Fedora" on https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
The first guide predates the changes to how configuration works, and the second guide is still correct. You would not mark this as a config file in /usr. If you're going to make user configuration get effectively blown away on upgrade, it's better to actually install it as a static regular file in /usr rather than what you're doing in /etc.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925323
--- Comment #5 from ericedens ericedens@google.com --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ericedens/gcp-guest-packa... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ericedens/gcp-guest-packa...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925323
ericedens ericedens@google.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(ngompa13@gmail.co | |m)
--- Comment #6 from ericedens ericedens@google.com --- OK, updated to add `noreplace`, but leave config files in `/etc`. I like this approach since if someone decides to modify one of these files and finds that it's working, then their changes won't get destroyed on update.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925323
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(ngompa13@gmail.co | |m) |
--- Comment #7 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- (In reply to ericedens from comment #6)
OK, updated to add `noreplace`, but leave config files in `/etc`. I like this approach since if someone decides to modify one of these files and finds that it's working, then their changes won't get destroyed on update.
The same thing would have happened if the files are installed in /usr and they make their own version in /etc, with the advantage that it's trivial to reset the settings back to what the package shipped.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925323
--- Comment #8 from ericedens ericedens@google.com --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ericedens/gcp-guest-packa... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ericedens/gcp-guest-packa...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925323
ericedens ericedens@google.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(ngompa13@gmail.co | |m)
--- Comment #9 from ericedens ericedens@google.com --- Updated so that dracut and modprobe configs are under /usr/lib
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925323
--- Comment #10 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== 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* Apache License 2.0", "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ngompa/1925323-google-compute- engine/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/dhcp, /etc/dhcp/dhclient.d [?]: 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. [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. [!]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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 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
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [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]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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]: 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: google-compute-engine-20201207.00-2.fc35.noarch.rpm google-compute-engine-20201207.00-2.fc35.src.rpm google-compute-engine.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US init -> unit, int, nit google-compute-engine.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 20201207.00 ['20201207.00-2.fc35', '20201207.00-2'] google-compute-engine.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib google-compute-engine.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary google_optimize_local_ssd google-compute-engine.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary google_set_hostname google-compute-engine.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary google_set_multiqueue google-compute-engine.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US init -> unit, int, nit google-compute-engine.src:56: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/dracut/dracut.conf.d/*.conf google-compute-engine.src:57: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/modprobe.d/*.conf 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 7 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- google-compute-engine.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US init -> unit, int, nit google-compute-engine.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 20201207.00 ['20201207.00-2.fc35', '20201207.00-2'] google-compute-engine.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib google-compute-engine.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary google_optimize_local_ssd google-compute-engine.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary google_set_hostname google-compute-engine.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary google_set_multiqueue 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/guest-configs/archive/20201207.00.tar... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b37df2e679e2e2fe5f113ab0f82c09ae4d7f4cb4a8dc0e5b47b01f32ff0726d0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b37df2e679e2e2fe5f113ab0f82c09ae4d7f4cb4a8dc0e5b47b01f32ff0726d0
Requires -------- google-compute-engine (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash config(google-compute-engine) dracut google-compute-engine-oslogin google-guest-agent nvme-cli rsyslog
Provides -------- google-compute-engine: config(google-compute-engine) google-compute-engine
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1925323 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, SugarActivity, Python, Java, C/C++, R, PHP, Ocaml, fonts, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925323
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(ngompa13@gmail.co | |m) |
--- Comment #11 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com ---
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/dhcp, /etc/dhcp/dhclient.d
You need "Requires: dhcp-client" in the package.
google-compute-engine.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 20201207.00 ['20201207.00-2.fc35', '20201207.00-2']
Changelog needs fixing
google-compute-engine
This package name should be changed to "google-compute-engine-guest-configs", since this is not "google-compute-engine", but the guest configuration code for running in GCE.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925323
--- Comment #12 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com ---
[?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
This was erroneous, this is actually fine.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925323
--- Comment #13 from Dusty Mabe dustymabe@redhat.com --- Just a note here that I think NetworkManager utilizes its own internal DHCP client implementation. I doubt the dhclient configuration that is getting dropped down by this RPM is even getting used.
Here's an f34 vagrant box I just booted:
``` Apr 09 15:49:37 fedora NetworkManager[523]: <info> [1617983377.5816] dhcp-init: Using DHCP client 'internal' ```
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925323
--- Comment #14 from ericedens ericedens@google.com --- Regarding the package name, I'd prefer to keep `google-compute-engine`, since this is what we use in CentOS and RHEL. https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/images/install-guest-environment#cento...
Spec updates in this version: 1. Added `You need "Requires: dhcp-client`; verified that `/etc/dhcp/dhclient.d/google_hostname.sh` is called via `/usr/lib/NetworkManager/dispatcher.d/11-dhclient`. 2. Updated version number in change log to avoid "incoherent-version-in-changelog"
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ericedens/gcp-guest-packa... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ericedens/gcp-guest-packa...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925323
--- Comment #15 from ericedens ericedens@google.com --- Fixed lint error about using hardcoded path to `/usr`
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ericedens/gcp-guest-packa... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ericedens/gcp-guest-packa...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925323
ericedens ericedens@google.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(ngompa13@gmail.co | |m)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925323
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(ngompa13@gmail.co | |m) |
--- Comment #16 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- (In reply to ericedens from comment #14)
Regarding the package name, I'd prefer to keep `google-compute-engine`, since this is what we use in CentOS and RHEL. https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/images/install-guest- environment#centosrhel
Wouldn't it make sense to consider renaming *that* package then? If the contents are the same, the name of the package is definitely wrong.
To me, it sounds odd to call it "google-compute-engine" since this package doesn't make a Fedora Linux machine become GCE. :)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925323
--- Comment #17 from Dusty Mabe dustymabe@redhat.com --- While I think the name isn't perfect it's definitely not imperfect and historical precedence for keeping it as `google-compute-engine` makes sense to me. The question that comes up is: "would another piece of software exist that would more appropriately have the name `google-compute-engine`?" I don't think so since the code behind the cloud platform is proprietary.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925323
--- Comment #18 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- I would really prefer to see it renamed before import. We could also have "Provides: google-compute-engine = %{version}-%{release}" if we want the other name to work too.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925323
--- Comment #19 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- To note, the previous incarnation of this was named "google-compute-engine-tools" which had the virtual name of "google-compute-engine" for compatibility with upstream: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/google-compute-engine-tools/blob/rawhide/...
I personally think it makes sense for this package to be called "google-compute-engine-guest-configs" and have a Provides statement for the other name.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925323
--- Comment #20 from ericedens ericedens@google.com --- Thanks for the analysis and insight. I'll post another version with the following:
1. Name package google-compute-engine-guest-configs 2. Include `Provides: %{base_name} = %{version}-%{release}`
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925323
--- Comment #21 from ericedens ericedens@google.com --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ericedens/gcp-guest-packa... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ericedens/gcp-guest-packa...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925323
ericedens ericedens@google.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(ngompa13@gmail.co | |m)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925323
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |google-compute-engine - |google-compute-engine-guest |Top-level package for |-configs - Google Compute |enabling Google Compute |Engine guest environment |Engine features |configuration Flags|needinfo?(ngompa13@gmail.co | |m) |
--- Comment #22 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== 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* Apache License 2.0", "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ngompa/1925323-google-compute-engine-guest- configs/licensecheck.txt [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. [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. [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 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]: 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]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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 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
===== 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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. [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: google-compute-engine-guest-configs-20201207.00-6.fc35.noarch.rpm google-compute-engine-guest-configs-20201207.00-6.fc35.src.rpm google-compute-engine-guest-configs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US init -> unit, int, nit google-compute-engine-guest-configs.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib google-compute-engine-guest-configs.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary google_optimize_local_ssd google-compute-engine-guest-configs.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary google_set_hostname google-compute-engine-guest-configs.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary google_set_multiqueue google-compute-engine-guest-configs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US init -> unit, int, nit google-compute-engine-guest-configs.src:57: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/dracut/dracut.conf.d/*.conf google-compute-engine-guest-configs.src:58: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/modprobe.d/*.conf 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- google-compute-engine-guest-configs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US init -> unit, int, nit google-compute-engine-guest-configs.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib google-compute-engine-guest-configs.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary google_optimize_local_ssd google-compute-engine-guest-configs.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary google_set_hostname google-compute-engine-guest-configs.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary google_set_multiqueue 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/guest-configs/archive/20201207.00.tar... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b37df2e679e2e2fe5f113ab0f82c09ae4d7f4cb4a8dc0e5b47b01f32ff0726d0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b37df2e679e2e2fe5f113ab0f82c09ae4d7f4cb4a8dc0e5b47b01f32ff0726d0
Requires -------- google-compute-engine-guest-configs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash config(google-compute-engine-guest-configs) dhcp-client dracut google-compute-engine-oslogin google-guest-agent nvme-cli rsyslog
Provides -------- google-compute-engine-guest-configs: config(google-compute-engine-guest-configs) google-compute-engine google-compute-engine-guest-configs
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1925323 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Python, Ocaml, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, PHP, R, Perl, C/C++, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925323
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(ericedens@google. | |com)
--- Comment #23 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- A couple of easy things to take care of:
[!]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present.
We need to have replacement of the old google-compute-engine-tools package in here:
Obsoletes: google-compute-engine-tools < 2.8.12-11 Provides: google-compute-engine-tools = 2.8.12-11
[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
Please add '-p' option to your calls to 'cp' and 'install' so that timestamps are preserved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925323
--- Comment #24 from ericedens ericedens@google.com --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ericedens/gcp-guest-packa... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ericedens/gcp-guest-packa...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925323
ericedens ericedens@google.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(ericedens@google. |needinfo?(ngompa13@gmail.co |com) |m)
--- Comment #25 from ericedens ericedens@google.com --- Thanks Neal!
- Added Obsoletes & Provides for google-compute-engine-tools - Added `-p` for cp and install commands.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925323
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(ngompa13@gmail.co | |m) |
--- Comment #26 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Looks good to me now!
PACKAGE APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925323
--- Comment #27 from ericedens ericedens@google.com --- Repo request: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/33746
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925323
--- Comment #28 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/google-compute-engine-guest-configs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925323 Bug 1925323 depends on bug 1925322, which changed state.
Bug 1925322 Summary: Review Request: google-guest-agent - Guest agent for Google Cloud Platform https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925322
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com