Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: ipxe - A network boot loader
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=804826
Summary: Review Request: ipxe - A network boot loader Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: berrange@redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: ---
Spec URL: http://berrange.fedorapeople.org/review/ipxe/ipxe.spec SRPM URL: http://berrange.fedorapeople.org/review/ipxe/ipxe-20120319-1.git0b2c788.fc18... Description: iPXE is an open source network bootloader. It provides a direct replacement for proprietary PXE ROMs, with many extra features such as DNS, HTTP, iSCSI, etc.
NB, this package is replacing 'gpxe' which is dead upstream. This ipxe.spec file is as close as identical to the existing gpxe spec as possible. Also while we obsolete gpxe, we do *not* provide gpxe, since the filenames are different and thus not interchangable. The QEMU RPM will need updating to switch to ipxe once this review is done.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=804826
Daniel Berrange berrange@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |684792
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=804826
Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |misc@zarb.org
--- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org 2012-03-20 12:39:09 EDT --- A few comments before starting the review : - use %global rather than %define ( see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over... )
- BuildRoot is no longer needed and should be removed
- same for rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT at the beggining of %install, and for %clean
- %defattr(-,root,root,-) is uneeded too
- Patch1 should have a mention of being sent upstream
- BuildRequires would be IMHO, better on a 4 lines, better for reviewing diff ( but that's just a personal note, not blocking for review )
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=804826
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Berrange berrange@redhat.com 2012-03-20 13:43:58 EDT --- New SRPM with all those issues addressed, SPEC at same URL as before:
http://berrange.fedorapeople.org/review/ipxe/ipxe-20120319-2.git0b2c788.fc18...
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=804826
Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |misc@zarb.org
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=804826
--- Comment #3 from Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org 2012-03-22 20:08:14 EDT --- Sorry for not looking earlier.
There is lots of file without any copyright, and the FSF address is wrong in the other, so can you notify upstream about this ?
Since that's just a fork and a rereview, and this was ok before, that's likely ok too, but I think that should be corrected ( since as spot say on http://spot.livejournal.com/303000.html "Get your licensing right, the first time. You really do not know where your code will end up." ).
You also forgot to remove %defattr from 2 packages, so can you remove them on import ?
I am posting the review on next comment.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=804826
--- Comment #4 from Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org 2012-03-22 20:13:09 EDT ---
Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated
==== Generic ==== [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files roms-qemu -f qemu.rom.list section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint ipxe-bootimgs-20120319-2.git0b2c788.fc18.noarch.rpm
ipxe-bootimgs.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bootable -> bookable, boo table, boo-table ipxe-bootimgs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bootloader -> boot loader, boot-loader, boatload ipxe-bootimgs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iSCSI -> SCSI, i SCSI, Isis ipxe-bootimgs.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided gpxe-bootimgs ipxe-bootimgs.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/ipxe-bootimgs-20120319/COPYING 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.
rpmlint ipxe-roms-qemu-20120319-2.git0b2c788.fc18.noarch.rpm
ipxe-roms-qemu.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) rom -> ROM, Rom, tom ipxe-roms-qemu.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bootloader -> boot loader, boot-loader, boatload ipxe-roms-qemu.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iSCSI -> SCSI, i SCSI, Isis ipxe-roms-qemu.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rom -> ROM, Rom, tom ipxe-roms-qemu.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided gpxe-roms-qemu ipxe-roms-qemu.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/ipxe-roms-qemu-20120319/COPYING 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings.
rpmlint ipxe-roms-20120319-2.git0b2c788.fc18.noarch.rpm
ipxe-roms.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) rom -> ROM, Rom, tom ipxe-roms.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bootloader -> boot loader, boot-loader, boatload ipxe-roms.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iSCSI -> SCSI, i SCSI, Isis ipxe-roms.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rom -> ROM, Rom, tom ipxe-roms.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided gpxe-roms ipxe-roms.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/ipxe-roms-20120319/COPYING 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings.
rpmlint ipxe-20120319-2.git0b2c788.fc18.src.rpm
ipxe.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bootloader -> boot loader, boot-loader, boatload ipxe.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iSCSI -> SCSI, i SCSI, Isis ipxe.src:28: W: macro-in-comment %h ipxe.src:29: W: macro-in-comment %Y ipxe.src:29: W: macro-in-comment %m ipxe.src:29: W: macro-in-comment %d ipxe.src: W: invalid-url Source0: ipxe-20120319-git0b2c788.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Package has no sources or they are generated by developer [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source1: USAGE (USAGE) [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Issues: [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files roms-qemu -f qemu.rom.list section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint ipxe-bootimgs-20120319-2.git0b2c788.fc18.noarch.rpm
ipxe-bootimgs.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bootable -> bookable, boo table, boo-table ipxe-bootimgs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bootloader -> boot loader, boot-loader, boatload ipxe-bootimgs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iSCSI -> SCSI, i SCSI, Isis ipxe-bootimgs.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided gpxe-bootimgs ipxe-bootimgs.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/ipxe-bootimgs-20120319/COPYING 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.
rpmlint ipxe-roms-qemu-20120319-2.git0b2c788.fc18.noarch.rpm
ipxe-roms-qemu.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) rom -> ROM, Rom, tom ipxe-roms-qemu.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bootloader -> boot loader, boot-loader, boatload ipxe-roms-qemu.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iSCSI -> SCSI, i SCSI, Isis ipxe-roms-qemu.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rom -> ROM, Rom, tom ipxe-roms-qemu.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided gpxe-roms-qemu ipxe-roms-qemu.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/ipxe-roms-qemu-20120319/COPYING 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings.
rpmlint ipxe-roms-20120319-2.git0b2c788.fc18.noarch.rpm
ipxe-roms.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) rom -> ROM, Rom, tom ipxe-roms.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bootloader -> boot loader, boot-loader, boatload ipxe-roms.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iSCSI -> SCSI, i SCSI, Isis ipxe-roms.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rom -> ROM, Rom, tom ipxe-roms.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided gpxe-roms ipxe-roms.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/ipxe-roms-20120319/COPYING 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings.
rpmlint ipxe-20120319-2.git0b2c788.fc18.src.rpm
ipxe.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bootloader -> boot loader, boot-loader, boatload ipxe.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iSCSI -> SCSI, i SCSI, Isis ipxe.src:28: W: macro-in-comment %h ipxe.src:29: W: macro-in-comment %Y ipxe.src:29: W: macro-in-comment %m ipxe.src:29: W: macro-in-comment %d ipxe.src: W: invalid-url Source0: ipxe-20120319-git0b2c788.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint
Generated by fedora-review 0.1.3 External plugins:
Sp the spelling-error are false positive, and so does macro-in-comment. Obsolete-not-provided is explained.
%defattr issue should be easy to correct.
the incorrect-fsf-address should be reported upstream, but is not blocking https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2011-August/001701.html And I am not sure if incorrect-fsf-address
So I think the package is good to go.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=804826
Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review+
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=804826
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Berrange berrange@redhat.com 2012-03-23 10:24:05 EDT --- I have updated the RPM spec to remove the other %defattr items I missed.
I sent a friendly msg upstream about the source file license headers & FSF address
http://lists.ipxe.org/pipermail/ipxe-devel/2012-March/001310.html
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=804826
--- Comment #6 from Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org 2012-03-27 15:14:11 EDT --- Didn't you forget the request for creating the git repo :) ?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=804826
Daniel Berrange berrange@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #7 from Daniel Berrange berrange@redhat.com 2012-03-28 05:14:31 EDT --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: ipxe Short Description: A network boot loader Owners: virtmaint berrange Branches: f17 InitialCC:
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=804826
--- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com 2012-03-28 08:39:05 EDT --- virtmaint is not a valid FAS account in the packager group.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=804826
Daniel Berrange berrange@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #9 from Daniel Berrange berrange@redhat.com 2012-03-28 08:47:44 EDT --- virtmaint is a virtual user alias & as such the packager group is irrelevant. This account is used as the owner of virtualization related packages. eg see QEMU:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/qemu
See also:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/user/view/virtmaint
I want 'virtmaint' as the primary package owner for ipxe in the same way that it is for QEMU.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=804826
--- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com 2012-03-28 09:12:14 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=804826
--- Comment #11 from Daniel Berrange berrange@redhat.com 2012-03-28 14:31:14 EDT --- Built into rawhide
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=804826
Daniel Berrange berrange@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2012-03-28 14:31:38
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla