https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206067
Bug ID: 1206067 Summary: Review Request: python-oslo-log - OpenStack Oslo Log library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: karlthered@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-oslo-log.spec SRPM URL: https://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-oslo-log-1.0.0-1.fc22.src.rp... Description: The OpenStack Oslo Log library. Fedora Account System Username:hguemar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206067
Chandan Kumar chkumar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |chkumar@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Chandan Kumar chkumar@redhat.com --- This is un-official review of the package.
+ License is "ASL 2.0" which is valid and its license text is installed in LICENSE file.
Suggestions: [1.] Group tag is optional in Fedora and is only needed if you want this package to be built for EPEL5. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#Group_tag. You can remove Group tag from both package and sub-package.
[2.] Change the URL from launchpad to pypi, URL: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/oslo.log
[3.] Since this package requires python-six >=1.9.0, please change Requires to: Requires: python-six >= 1.9.0
[4.] Description of the package is not clear. Please add some more information about the package.
[5.] rpmlint on all generated rpms and specfile give result: python-oslo-log-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python-oslo-log-doc/html/_static/jquery.js 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
=> It can be fixed by adding dos2unix doc/build/html/_static/jquery.js in %install section
but this will require you to add in spec file BuildRequires: dos2unix
[6.] From mock build.log, ImportError: No module named oslo_context
Since, python-oslo-context package is not available in Fedora, Once it is availablle, Please add this package in BuildRequires in the spec file.
[7.] in %files section, please include other files also present in the python package tarball. %doc AUTHORS CONTRIBUTING.rst README.rst PKG-INFO ChangeLog
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206067
--- Comment #2 from Haïkel Guémar karlthered@gmail.com --- 1. group tag => good catch 2. launchpad is also valid 3. does not harm having it but not necessary (we won't have older python-six in targeted distros) 4. could you explain ? oslo.log is just a log library, I can't think of a clearer description :/ 5. I wouldn't mess with compressed javascript files :/ 6. Yes, this is known, but it only causes a warning during documentation building, when python-oslo-context will be approved, the BuildRequires will be uncommented. Should not be a blocker. 7. +1 for ChangeLog and AUTHORS but bundling the other suggested documents are not useful (PKG-INFO is not recommended)
=> updated, thanks for your review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206067
Lukas Bezdicka social@v3.sk changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |social@v3.sk Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |social@v3.sk Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206067
--- Comment #3 from Lukas Bezdicka social@v3.sk --- Please fix the description section, you have several typos there.
Rest seems to be fine.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines - 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. Note: Cannot find LICENSE in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
===== 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/social/1206067-python-oslo-log/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. Note: Test run failed [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Test run failed [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Note: Test run failed [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
Python: [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Test run failed [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. Note: Test run failed [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. Note: Test run failed [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python Note: Test run failed [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
===== 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python- oslo-log-doc [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Test run failed [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.2.7 starting (python version = 3.4.2)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled yum cache Start: cleaning yum metadata Finish: cleaning yum metadata INFO: enabled ccache Mock Version: 1.2.7 INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.7 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/social/1206067-python-oslo-log/results/python-oslo-log-1.0.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm /home/social/1206067-python-oslo-log/results/python-oslo-log-doc-1.0.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. # /usr/bin/yum --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-22-x86_64/root/ --releasever 22 install /home/social/1206067-python-oslo-log/results/python-oslo-log-1.0.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm /home/social/1206067-python-oslo-log/results/python-oslo-log-doc-1.0.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-oslo-log-1.0.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm python-oslo-log-doc-1.0.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm python-oslo-log-1.0.0-1.fc22.src.rpm python-oslo-log.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US penStack -> pen Stack, pen-stack, pens tack python-oslo-log.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US openstack -> open stack, open-stack, opens tack python-oslo-log.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US formatters -> for matters, for-matters, formatted python-oslo-log-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python-oslo-log-doc/html/objects.inv python-oslo-log-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/python-oslo-log-doc/html/objects.inv python-oslo-log-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python-oslo-log-doc/html/_static/jquery.js python-oslo-log.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US penStack -> pen Stack, pen-stack, pens tack python-oslo-log.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US openstack -> open stack, open-stack, opens tack python-oslo-log.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US formatters -> for matters, for-matters, formatted 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.
Requires -------- python-oslo-log (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-babel python-iso8601 python-oslo-config python-oslo-context python-oslo-i18n python-oslo-serialization python-oslo-utils python-six
python-oslo-log-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- python-oslo-log: python-oslo-log
python-oslo-log-doc: python-oslo-log-doc
Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/o/oslo.log/oslo.log-1.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3d66e9a70b82bc1c7c0b70114d093620e86bef679177ee1ec668c6e0a1acf52a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3d66e9a70b82bc1c7c0b70114d093620e86bef679177ee1ec668c6e0a1acf52a
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1206067 Buildroot used: fedora-22-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206067
Lukas Bezdicka social@v3.sk changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|social@v3.sk |nobody@fedoraproject.org Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Lukas Bezdicka social@v3.sk --- Remaining rpmlint warnings are acceptable, mock failed because of missing python-oslo-context which already passed review in bug #1201325.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206067
Haïkel Guémar karlthered@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #5 from Haïkel Guémar karlthered@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-oslo-log Short Description: OpenStack Oslo Log library Upstream URL: http://launchpad.net/oslo Owners: hguemar,apevec Branches: f22 InitialCC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206067
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206067
--- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206067
Alan Pevec apevec@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED Fixed In Version| |python-oslo-log-1.0.0-1.fc2 | |3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206067
--- Comment #7 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- social's scratch build of openstack-puppet-modules?#db4e135626252ebf0b23b8a0e6e98ce0dcf2f9e6 for git://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/openstack-puppet-modules?#db4e135626252ebf0b23b8a0e6e98ce0dcf2f9e6 and rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11426591
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206067
Charalampos Stratakis cstratak@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED CC| |cstratak@redhat.com Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed| |2016-09-27 10:45:01
--- Comment #8 from Charalampos Stratakis cstratak@redhat.com --- Since the package has been built for quite some time now, the bugzilla review request should be closed.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla