[Bug 2260380] New: Review Request: linux-sysinfo-snapshot - System information snapshot tool for Mellanox adapters
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260380
Bug ID: 2260380 Summary: Review Request: linux-sysinfo-snapshot - System information snapshot tool for Mellanox adapters Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: davide@cavalca.name QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/linux-sysinfo-snapshot/linux-sysinf... SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/linux-sysinfo-snapshot/linux-sysinf...
Description: Linux Sysinfo Snapshot is a tool designed to take a snapshot of all the configuration and relevant information on the server and Mellanox's adapters.
Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260380
--- Comment #1 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=112360201
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260380
Michel Lind michel@michel-slm.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |michel@michel-slm.name CC| |michel@michel-slm.name Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260380
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/Mellanox | |/linux-sysinfo-snapshot Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6952646 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260380
--- Comment #3 from Michel Lind michel@michel-slm.name --- Any reason you BR python3 and python3(setuptools) since... there is no setup done apart from copying files?
only other quibble: preserve the timestamp when sed-ing the source to adjust the config file path so this builds reproducibly.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260380
--- Comment #4 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- (In reply to Michel Lind from comment #3)
Any reason you BR python3 and python3(setuptools) since... there is no setup done apart from copying files?
Because of this:
from distutils.version import LooseVersion
as otherwise the script will fail to run because it can't find the module.
only other quibble: preserve the timestamp when sed-ing the source to adjust the config file path so this builds reproducibly.
Sure, will fix.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260380
--- Comment #5 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/linux-sysinfo-snapshot/linux-sysinf... SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/linux-sysinfo-snapshot/linux-sysinf...
Changelog: - preserve timestamp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260380
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2010572 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2010572&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6952646 to 6952895
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260380
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6952895 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260380
Michel Lind michel@michel-slm.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Michel Lind michel@michel-slm.name --- LGTM, APPROVED
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [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. [-]: 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 20603 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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). [?]: 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. [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]: 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: No rpmlint messages.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: linux-sysinfo-snapshot-3.7.6-1.fc40.noarch.rpm linux-sysinfo-snapshot-3.7.6-1.fc40.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpmkbkvupb')] checks: 31, packages: 2
linux-sysinfo-snapshot.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sysinfo-snapshot 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "linux-sysinfo-snapshot". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python2.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1
0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Mellanox/linux-sysinfo-snapshot/archive/v3.7.6/linux-sysi... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 047c87ea71aa8fccd04b3ee528c395f52bdf4c192056b01013d777b223eaa219 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 047c87ea71aa8fccd04b3ee528c395f52bdf4c192056b01013d777b223eaa219
Requires -------- linux-sysinfo-snapshot (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 config(linux-sysinfo-snapshot) python3dist(setuptools)
Provides -------- linux-sysinfo-snapshot: config(linux-sysinfo-snapshot) linux-sysinfo-snapshot
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name linux-sysinfo-snapshot --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, C/C++, Haskell, Java, R, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260380
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/linux-sysinfo-snapshot
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260380
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-32e94fe750 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-32e94fe750
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260380
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2024-01-26 04:39:26
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-32e94fe750 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260380
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-cfe797f8d3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-cfe797f8d3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260380
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2024-62d01a7dc1 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-62d01a7dc1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260380
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-ded916b06f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-ded916b06f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260380
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2024-badf23b7b1 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-badf23b7b1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260380
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2024-62d01a7dc1 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-62d01a7dc1
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260380
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2024-badf23b7b1 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-badf23b7b1
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260380
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-cfe797f8d3 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-cfe797f8d3 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-cfe797f8d3
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260380
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-ded916b06f has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-ded916b06f *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-ded916b06f
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260380
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-cfe797f8d3 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260380
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2024-62d01a7dc1 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260380
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-ded916b06f has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260380
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2024-badf23b7b1 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com