https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255179
Bug ID: 1255179 Summary: Review Request: runc - Open Container Foundation runtime reference Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: markllama@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/markllama/runc/rpmspec/runc.spec SRPM URL: https://markllama.fedorapeople.org/runc/SRPMS/runc-0.2-1.git0ccf611.fc22.src... Description: Open Container Foundation reference implementation Fedora Account System Username: markllama
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255179
Lokesh Mandvekar lsm5@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lsm5@redhat.com Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Flags| |fedora-review?
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=1255179
Lokesh Mandvekar lsm5@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fpokorny@redhat.com, | |jchaloup@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Lokesh Mandvekar lsm5@redhat.com --- Fridolin, Jan, could you please run some gofed magic on this to package up its deps :D ? I'll be happy to review those packages :)
I still stand by my hatred for golang deps, but whatever needed to make everyone happy :)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255179
--- Comment #2 from Lokesh Mandvekar lsm5@redhat.com --- Upstream: https://github.com/opencontainers/runc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255179
--- Comment #3 from Lokesh Mandvekar lsm5@redhat.com --- a quick look at godeps.json tells me most of them are packaged already, apart from opencontainers/specs.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255179
Nalin Dahyabhai nalin@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |nalin@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |nalin@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255179
--- Comment #4 from Jan Chaloupka jchaloup@redhat.com --- $ pwd .../runc-90e6d3763e917ca0d6c24c63c07320f0424fcd0c/Godeps $ gofed check-deps -v package golang-github-Sirupsen-logrus has newer commit package golang-github-codegangsta-cli outdated package golang-github-coreos-go-systemd outdated package golang-github-godbus-dbus outdated package golang-googlecode-goprotobuf has newer commit import path github.com/opencontainers/specs not found package golang-github-syndtr-gocapability has newer commit
runc-90e6d3763e917ca0d6c24c63c07320f0424fcd0c]$ gofed ggi -dcv Class: github.com/Sirupsen/logrus (golang-github-Sirupsen-logrus) PkgDB=True Class: github.com/coreos/go-systemd (golang-github-coreos-go-systemd) PkgDB=True Class: github.com/docker/docker (docker) PkgDB=True Class: github.com/godbus/dbus (golang-github-godbus-dbus) PkgDB=True Class: github.com/golang/protobuf (golang-googlecode-goprotobuf) PkgDB=True Class: github.com/opencontainers/runc (golang-github-opencontainers-runc) PkgDB=False Class: github.com/syndtr/gocapability (golang-github-syndtr-gocapability) PkgDB=True
golang-github-codegangsta-cli, golang-github-coreos-go-systemd and golang-github-godbus-dbus need to get updated.
github.com/opencontainers/specs is not packaged in Fedora as you wrote.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255179
Jan Chaloupka jchaloup@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |1255370
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255370 [Bug 1255370] Review Request: golang-github-opencontainers-specs - Open Container Specifications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255179
--- Comment #5 from Jan Chaloupka jchaloup@redhat.com --- Mark, if you don't mind I would replace your spec file mine. It is generated with spec-2.0 with support for secondary architectures, unit-test subpackage, minimal devel subpackage and debug info.
At the moment I am still working on building binaries with debug info for secondary architectures. So I will sent another update of the spec file soon.
Spec URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-opencontainers-runc/...
SRPM URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-opencontainers-runc/...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255179
--- Comment #6 from Mark Lamourine markllama@gmail.com --- Jan: I am perfectly happy to let you pick this up and run with it. I started because I want it for testing and evaluation and especially for embedding in container hosts such as Project Atomic or CoreOS.
Would you want to take ownership of the ticket as well?
- Mark
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255179
--- Comment #7 from Jan Chaloupka jchaloup@redhat.com --- golang-github-coreos-go-systemd updated [1]. Yet, not in updates/buildroot override due to update of bodhi to 2.0.
[1] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10764593
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255179
--- Comment #8 from Jan Chaloupka jchaloup@redhat.com --- What ticket? Please :)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255179
--- Comment #9 from Mark Lamourine markllama@gmail.com --- This one.... You're welcome to proceed and it won't hurt my feelings at all. It will likely get a better result faster than if I proceed.
- Mark
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255179
Jan Chaloupka jchaloup@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #10 from Jan Chaloupka jchaloup@redhat.com --- I will. Thanks for heads up.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255179
--- Comment #11 from Jan Chaloupka jchaloup@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/runc/runc.spec
SRPM URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/runc/runc-0.2-0.2.git90e6d37.fc20....
Description: CLI for running Open Containers
Fedora Account System Username: jchaloup
$ rpmlint runc-0.2-0.2.git90e6d37.fc20.src.rpm runc-0.2-0.2.git90e6d37.fc20.x86_64.rpm runc-devel-0.2-0.2.git90e6d37.fc20.noarch.rpm runc-unit-test-0.2-0.2.git90e6d37.fc20.x86_64.rpm runc-debuginfo-0.2-0.2.git90e6d37.fc20.x86_64.rpm runc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary runc runc-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US github -> git hub, git-hub, thuggish runc-unit-test.x86_64: E: devel-dependency runc-devel runc-unit-test.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US github -> git hub, git-hub, thuggish 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255179
--- Comment #12 from Jan Chaloupka jchaloup@redhat.com --- Koji: it depends on bz#1255370 which is on review. Locally it builds fine.
Some info about spec file: - spec file version 2.0 - support for secondary architectures - support for CI testing (unit-test subpackage) - minimal devel subpackage - debug info for both primary and secondary architectures
Notes: "E: devel-dependency runc-devel" can be ignored, as unit-test subpackage depends on/test on source codes provided by the devel subpackage.
Nalin, the spec file is ready for review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255179
Jan Chaloupka jchaloup@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: runc - Open |Review Request: runc - CLI |Container Foundation |for running Open Containers |runtime reference |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255179
--- Comment #13 from Nalin Dahyabhai nalin@redhat.com --- Looks pretty good to me. Here's the checklist from fedora-review, with a few items that I'd like to know more about (search for "[ ]" and "[!]"):
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [X]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [X]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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. Package license is ASL 2.0. [X]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. No patches are applied, and the bundled license text is that of ASL 2.0, which is in line with the opencontainers charter. [X]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. Except for the debuginfo, of course. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Subdirectories under /usr/share/gocode that aren't owned by golang or the opencontainer-specs package should be owned by this package so that its removal doesn't leave empties around. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/system,
/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/cgroups/systemd, /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/selinux, /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/seccomp, /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/configs,
/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/stacktrace,
/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/cgroups/fs, /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/label, /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/netlink, /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/cgroups, /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/devices,
/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/configs/validate, /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/utils, /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/nsenter, /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/criurpc, /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/xattr, /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/user, /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer,
/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/integration, /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/apparmor [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/system, /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/utils,
/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/configs/validate, /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/nsenter,
/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/cgroups/systemd, /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/selinux, /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/label, /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/netlink, /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/criurpc, /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/configs, /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/seccomp, /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/xattr,
/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/stacktrace, /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer,
/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/integration,
/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/cgroups/fs, /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/user, /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/cgroups, /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/devices, /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/apparmor [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. Might want to add a comment about the -B flag here, for people like me who didn't know that it tells the go linker to embed a build ID note in the binary. [X]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. It's customary to use a person's full name where the changelog currently lists a Fedora account name. It's not a blocker, but my guess is it's an oversight. [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. There's no date in the release field, so the Y in 0.Y.gitshortcommit.disttag will need to be manually incremented to keep the sorting order correct. [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. The runc-devel package appears to be missing a requires on "golang(github.com/opencontainers/specs)", which is imported by multiple parts of libcontainer. [X]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [X]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 92160 bytes in 12 files. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines The runc command should (eventually) have a manual page. The package description should be more than just a copy of the summary. [ ]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Missing BuildRequires on "golang(github.com/opencontainers/specs)" (from bug #1255370) and "golang(github.com/codegangsta/cli)". [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 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]: Dist tag is present. [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
===== 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). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Whether runc-devel or runc-unit-test should depend on the same version of runc isn't really clear to me, since there aren't any dangling symlinks if they don't. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in runc- devel, runc-unit-test [!]: 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]: %check is present and all tests pass. [X]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [ ]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Why is copying() defined using %define rather than %global? [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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: runc-0.2-0.2.git90e6d37.fc24.x86_64.rpm runc-devel-0.2-0.2.git90e6d37.fc24.noarch.rpm runc-unit-test-0.2-0.2.git90e6d37.fc24.x86_64.rpm runc-0.2-0.2.git90e6d37.fc24.src.rpm runc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary runc runc-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US github -> git hub, git-hub, GitHub runc-unit-test.x86_64: E: devel-dependency runc-devel runc-unit-test.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US github -> git hub, git-hub, GitHub 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: runc-debuginfo-0.2-0.2.git90e6d37.fc24.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory runc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary runc runc-unit-test.x86_64: E: devel-dependency runc-devel 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
Requires -------- runc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
runc-unit-test (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): runc-devel
runc-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): golang(github.com/Sirupsen/logrus) golang(github.com/coreos/go-systemd/dbus) golang(github.com/coreos/go-systemd/util) golang(github.com/docker/docker/pkg/mount) golang(github.com/docker/docker/pkg/symlink) golang(github.com/docker/docker/pkg/units) golang(github.com/godbus/dbus) golang(github.com/golang/protobuf/proto) golang(github.com/syndtr/gocapability/capability)
Provides -------- runc: runc runc(x86-64)
runc-unit-test: runc-unit-test runc-unit-test(x86-64)
runc-devel: golang(github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer) golang(github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/apparmor) golang(github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/cgroups) golang(github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/cgroups/fs) golang(github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/cgroups/systemd) golang(github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/configs) golang(github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/configs/validate) golang(github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/criurpc) golang(github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/devices) golang(github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/integration) golang(github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/label) golang(github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/netlink) golang(github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/nsenter) golang(github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/seccomp) golang(github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/selinux) golang(github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/stacktrace) golang(github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/system) golang(github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/user) golang(github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/utils) golang(github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/xattr) runc-devel
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/opencontainers/runc/archive/90e6d3763e917ca0d6c24c63c0732... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : dabe7334b037a66298338832a3a9739eed91bb3e8f21ccf8f48182d51c4a11bf CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : dabe7334b037a66298338832a3a9739eed91bb3e8f21ccf8f48182d51c4a11bf
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n runc -m runc Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255179
Nalin Dahyabhai nalin@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
--- Comment #14 from Nalin Dahyabhai nalin@redhat.com --- Jan is already in the packagers group, removing this from the list of FE-NEEDSPONSOR bugs.
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=1255179
--- Comment #15 from Jan Chaloupka jchaloup@redhat.com ---
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Subdirectories under /usr/share/gocode that aren't owned by golang or the opencontainer-specs package should be owned by this package so that its removal doesn't leave empties around.
Spec file updated. All directories are owned by devel subpackage. As user could update a devel subpackage without updating unit-test, both packages could end up owning the same directory. So no directories owned by unit-test.
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. Might want to add a comment about the -B flag here, for people like me who didn't know that it tells the go linker to embed a build ID note in the binary.
Described in Packaging Draft [1].
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. It's customary to use a person's full name where the changelog currently lists a Fedora account name. It's not a blocker, but my guess is it's an oversight.
Updated.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. The runc-devel package appears to be missing a requires on "golang(github.com/opencontainers/specs)", which is imported by multiple parts of libcontainer.
$ gofed ggi --all-occurrences --show-occurrence | grep github.com/opencontainers/specs github.com/opencontainers/specs (spec.go:main, restore.go:main, utils.go:main, run.go:main)
github.com/opencontainers/specs is used only in main packages. These are not to be imported by other packages.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines The runc command should (eventually) have a manual page.
Definitely.
The package description should be more than just a copy of the summary.
At the moment I don't see any description that would be explaining enough what runc is. If you have an idea what description is suitable, please. I will update the spec file accordingly.
[ ]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Missing BuildRequires on "golang(github.com/opencontainers/specs)" (from bug #1255370) and "golang(github.com/codegangsta/cli)".
Updated. Thanks. This is not included in the spec file generator. I will update the generator as well.
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Whether runc-devel or runc-unit-test should depend on the same version of runc isn't really clear to me, since there aren't any dangling symlinks if they don't. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in runc-devel, runc-unit-test
Neither devel nor unit-test depends on runc.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
By the time of generating the spec file, the commit was the latest one.
[ ]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Why is copying() defined using %define rather than %global?
Because copying is a parametric macro which needs to be evaluated in the time of use. As a global, it would be evaluated in the time of definition end up with empty %license macro.
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Go =========================
Spec URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/runc/runc.spec
SRPM URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/runc/runc-0.2-0.2.git90e6d37.fc20....
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255179
--- Comment #16 from Jan Chaloupka jchaloup@redhat.com --- For missing BuildRequires https://github.com/ingvagabund/gofed/issues/28
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255179
--- Comment #17 from Nalin Dahyabhai nalin@redhat.com --- (In reply to Jan Chaloupka from comment #15)
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Subdirectories under /usr/share/gocode that aren't owned by golang or the opencontainer-specs package should be owned by this package so that its removal doesn't leave empties around.
Spec file updated. All directories are owned by devel subpackage. As user could update a devel subpackage without updating unit-test, both packages could end up owning the same directory. So no directories owned by unit-test.
Thanks!
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. Might want to add a comment about the -B flag here, for people like me who didn't know that it tells the go linker to embed a build ID note in the binary.
Described in Packaging Draft [1].
Ah, okay, works for me.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. It's customary to use a person's full name where the changelog currently lists a Fedora account name. It's not a blocker, but my guess is it's an oversight.
Updated.
Great!
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. The runc-devel package appears to be missing a requires on "golang(github.com/opencontainers/specs)", which is imported by multiple parts of libcontainer.
$ gofed ggi --all-occurrences --show-occurrence | grep github.com/opencontainers/specs github.com/opencontainers/specs (spec.go:main, restore.go:main, utils.go:main, run.go:main)
github.com/opencontainers/specs is used only in main packages. These are not to be imported by other packages.
Whoops, you're right - no idea what made me think that was used internally.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines The runc command should (eventually) have a manual page.
Definitely.
The package description should be more than just a copy of the summary.
At the moment I don't see any description that would be explaining enough what runc is. If you have an idea what description is suitable, please. I will update the spec file accordingly.
Possibly "The runc command can be used to start containers which are packaged in accordance with the Open Container Initiative's specifications, and to manage containers running under runc.", or something that includes more of the details from the web site or runc's --help output.
[ ]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Missing BuildRequires on "golang(github.com/opencontainers/specs)" (from bug #1255370) and "golang(github.com/codegangsta/cli)".
Updated. Thanks. This is not included in the spec file generator. I will update the generator as well.
Great!
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Whether runc-devel or runc-unit-test should depend on the same version of runc isn't really clear to me, since there aren't any dangling symlinks if they don't. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in runc-devel, runc-unit-test
Neither devel nor unit-test depends on runc.
Okay.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
By the time of generating the spec file, the commit was the latest one.
Understood.
[ ]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Why is copying() defined using %define rather than %global?
Because copying is a parametric macro which needs to be evaluated in the time of use. As a global, it would be evaluated in the time of definition end up with empty %license macro.
Are you sure that's necessary here? When I try changing it, the files show up in the right place with the right file flags in the binary packages.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255179
--- Comment #18 from Jan Chaloupka jchaloup@redhat.com ---
The package description should be more than just a copy of the summary.
At the moment I don't see any description that would be explaining enough what runc is. If you have an idea what description is suitable, please. I will update the spec file accordingly.
Possibly "The runc command can be used to start containers which are packaged in accordance with the Open Container Initiative's specifications, and to manage containers running under runc.", or something that includes more of the details from the web site or runc's --help output.
Updated.
[ ]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Why is copying() defined using %define rather than %global?
Because copying is a parametric macro which needs to be evaluated in the time of use. As a global, it would be evaluated in the time of definition end up with empty %license macro.
Are you sure that's necessary here? When I try changing it, the files show up in the right place with the right file flags in the binary packages.
copying parametric macro completely removed. Replaced with: {!?_licensedir:%global license %doc}
Spec URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/runc/runc.spec
SRPM URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/runc/runc-0.2-0.2.git90e6d37.fc20....
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255179
--- Comment #19 from Jan Chaloupka jchaloup@redhat.com --- In addition I have: - modified ExclusiveArch and BuildRequires in a top of the spec file - removed ExclusiveArch from unit-test subpackage and modified BuildRequires - removed definition of gobuild and gotest functions from %build and %check and replaced them with new %gobuild and %gotest macros defined in go-compilers packages (brought by compiler(go-compiler) BR)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255179
Nalin Dahyabhai nalin@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #20 from Nalin Dahyabhai nalin@redhat.com --- Moving the conditional definition of %license to the top along with the rest of the global macro definitions would make it easier to spot. Otherwise looks good to me. Setting 'fedora-review' flag to '+'.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255179
--- Comment #21 from Jan Chaloupka jchaloup@redhat.com --- Thanks Nalin. %license can not be moved to the top. It must be defined after License tag, otherwise the tag is used instead of the macro. So the best place for it is before %files section for which it is intended.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255179
Jan Chaloupka jchaloup@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #22 from Jan Chaloupka jchaloup@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: runc Short Description: CLI for running Open Containers Upstream URL: https://github.com/opencontainers/runc Owners: jchaloup Branches: f23 f22 f21 el6 epel7 InitialCC: golang-sig
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255179
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255179
--- Comment #23 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255179
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- runc-0.2-0.2.git90e6d37.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-8152
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255179
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255179
--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- runc-0.2-0.2.git90e6d37.fc21 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 21. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-16227
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255179
--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- runc-0.2-0.2.git90e6d37.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-16228
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255179
--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- runc-0.2-0.2.git90e6d37.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-16229
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255179
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- runc-0.2-0.2.git90e6d37.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update runc' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-16229
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255179
--- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- runc-0.2-0.2.git90e6d37.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update runc' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-16227
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255179
--- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- runc-0.2-0.2.git90e6d37.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update runc' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-16228
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255179
--- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- runc-0.2-0.2.git90e6d37.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update runc' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-8152
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255179
--- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- runc-0.2-0.2.git90e6d37.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255179
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2015-10-03 13:54:30
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255179 Bug 1255179 depends on bug 1255370, which changed state.
Bug 1255370 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-opencontainers-specs - Open Container Specifications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255370
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255179 Bug 1255179 depends on bug 1255370, which changed state.
Bug 1255370 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-opencontainers-specs - Open Container Specifications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255370
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ON_QA Resolution|ERRATA |---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255179 Bug 1255179 depends on bug 1255370, which changed state.
Bug 1255370 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-opencontainers-specs - Open Container Specifications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255370
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255179 Bug 1255179 depends on bug 1255370, which changed state.
Bug 1255370 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-opencontainers-specs - Open Container Specifications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255370
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ON_QA Resolution|ERRATA |---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255179 Bug 1255179 depends on bug 1255370, which changed state.
Bug 1255370 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-opencontainers-specs - Open Container Specifications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255370
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla