https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2290871
Bug ID: 2290871 Summary: Review Request: foosnapper - Automatic filesystem snapshooter Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: b@bbbs.net QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://heino.kim/foosnapper/foosnapper.spec SRPM URL: https://heino.kim/foosnapper/foosnapper-1.2-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: Automatic filesystem snapshooter, supporting Stratis and Btrfs. Fedora Account System Username: kimheino
I'm the foosnapper author. I'm already packaging foomuuri (I'm the author), munin and sawfish for Fedora and EPEL.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2290871
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/FoobarOy | |/foosnapper
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7554824 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/foosnapper/diff.txt Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ - Systemd service file(s) in foosnapper Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scrip...
Please know that there can be false-positives.
--- 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=2290871
Kim B. Heino b@bbbs.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #2 from Kim B. Heino b@bbbs.net ---
- Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/foosnapper/diff.txt
Spec refers to release 1.2 but SRPM was built against git head snapshot / git tarball. I'll do new 1.3 release before submitting foosnapper to Fedora to fix this.
- Systemd service file(s) in foosnapper
Missing "%systemd_postun foosnapper.service" added in upstream https://github.com/FoobarOy/foosnapper/commit/c9db3c91085d00f62fdad4b97c9ace...
foosnapper.noarch: E: spelling-error ('snapshooter', 'Summary(en_US) snapshooter -> snap shooter, snap-shooter, snaps hooter') foosnapper.noarch: E: spelling-error ('snapshooter', '%description -l en_US snapshooter -> snap shooter, snap-shooter, snaps hooter') foosnapper.src: E: spelling-error ('snapshooter', 'Summary(en_US) snapshooter -> snap shooter, snap-shooter, snaps hooter') foosnapper.src: E: spelling-error ('snapshooter', '%description -l en_US snapshooter -> snap shooter, snap-shooter, snaps hooter')
"snapshoot" is renamed to more common "snapshot" (also: snapshooter -> snapshotter) in upstream https://github.com/FoobarOy/foosnapper/commit/4330a489c00df71c8cfac33a3d2932...
foosnapper.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/foosnapper/foosnapper.conf 640
Fixed in upstream https://github.com/FoobarOy/foosnapper/commit/4f2d324abc8b75716f35fb8e7c7c6b...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2290871
Paul Wouters paul.wouters@aiven.io changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |paul.wouters@aiven.io CC| |paul.wouters@aiven.io
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2290871
Paul Wouters paul.wouters@aiven.io changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2290871
Paul Wouters paul.wouters@aiven.io changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |needinfo?(b@bbbs.net)
--- Comment #3 from Paul Wouters paul.wouters@aiven.io --- Can you please publish the 1.3 upstream and update the spec and srpm so that I can pull in everything and run fedora-review without manually packaging up stuff. This always avoids us trusting your promise instead of your code :)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2290871
Kim B. Heino b@bbbs.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(b@bbbs.net) |
--- Comment #4 from Kim B. Heino b@bbbs.net --- Spec URL: https://heino.kim/foosnapper/foosnapper.spec SRPM URL: https://heino.kim/foosnapper/foosnapper-1.3-1.fc40.src.rpm
Version 1.3 released.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2290871
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2037801 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2037801&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 7554824 to 7627461
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2290871
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7627461 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/foosnapper/diff.txt Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ - Systemd service file(s) in foosnapper Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scrip...
Please know that there can be false-positives.
--- 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=2290871
--- Comment #7 from Kim B. Heino b@bbbs.net --- Spec URL: https://heino.kim/foosnapper/foosnapper.spec SRPM URL: https://heino.kim/foosnapper/foosnapper-1.3-1.fc40.src.rpm
Let's try one more time to get correct md5sum.
I don't understand what's wrong with systemd services.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2290871
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7627569 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- Systemd service file(s) in foosnapper Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scrip...
Please know that there can be false-positives.
--- 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=2290871
--- Comment #9 from Kim B. Heino b@bbbs.net --- Ping Paul?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2290871
--- Comment #10 from Kim B. Heino b@bbbs.net --- Ping Paul? Another two months has passed.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2290871
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org
--- Comment #11 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in foosnapper See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets
===== 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: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/foosnapper/2290871-foosnapper/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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 336 bytes in 1 files. [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). [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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: foosnapper-1.3-1.fc42.noarch.rpm foosnapper-1.3-1.fc42.src.rpm ======================================================== rpmlint session starts ======================================================== rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp3akmc9wf')] checks: 32, packages: 2
foosnapper.noarch: E: spelling-error ('snapshotter', 'Summary(en_US) snapshotter -> snaps hotter, snaps-hotter, snapshot') foosnapper.noarch: E: spelling-error ('snapshotter', '%description -l en_US snapshotter -> snaps hotter, snaps-hotter, snapshot') foosnapper.src: E: spelling-error ('snapshotter', 'Summary(en_US) snapshotter -> snaps hotter, snaps-hotter, snapshot') foosnapper.src: E: spelling-error ('snapshotter', '%description -l en_US snapshotter -> snaps hotter, snaps-hotter, snapshot') ================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 0 warnings, 11 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 2.3 s ===================
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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
foosnapper.noarch: E: spelling-error ('snapshotter', 'Summary(en_US) snapshotter -> snaps hotter, snaps-hotter, snapshot') foosnapper.noarch: E: spelling-error ('snapshotter', '%description -l en_US snapshotter -> snaps hotter, snaps-hotter, snapshot') 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.6 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/FoobarOy/foosnapper/archive/v1.3/foosnapper-1.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c45b5cf7b77e2e6dd222cf52ae556893b708d40bbe60ed35f2698a9553f2fbdf CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c45b5cf7b77e2e6dd222cf52ae556893b708d40bbe60ed35f2698a9553f2fbdf
Requires -------- foosnapper (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/python3 config(foosnapper) python3 systemd
Provides -------- foosnapper: config(foosnapper) foosnapper
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2290871 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, C/C++, Ocaml, Perl, SugarActivity, Python, Haskell, Java, R, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments: a) Seems mostly ok. Systemd warning seems like a false positive, though maybe am mistaken. b) Should here be a a BuildRequires: python3-devel https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_distro_wi...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2290871
--- Comment #12 from Kim B. Heino b@bbbs.net --- Thanks for the review.
a) Yes, systemd-warning seems to be false positive
b) You are correct. I'll add it. Do you want me to build another srpm with that added, or can I add it to the final release version later?
Same python3-devel applies to my foomuuri package then, which is already accepted to Fedora. I'll fix that too.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2290871
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|paul.wouters@aiven.io |benson_muite@emailplus.org Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #13 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Please add BuildRequires: python3-devel on import. Approved.
Would appreciate review of: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2322079 if time allows.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2290871
--- Comment #14 from Kim B. Heino b@bbbs.net --- Thanks for the review and approval, but:
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/70811
The email address "benson_muite@emailplus.org" of the Bugzilla reviewer is not tied to a user in FAS or FAS check failed. Group membership can't be validated.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2290871
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2290871
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #15 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Please check again
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2290871
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/foosnapper
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2290871
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2025-8984890145 (foosnapper-1.4-1.el10_1) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.1. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-8984890145
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2290871
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2025-8984890145 (foosnapper-1.4-1.el10_1) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.1. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-8984890145
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-8cda3b9968 (foosnapper-1.4-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-8cda3b9968
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2290871
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2025-8984890145 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.1 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-8984890145
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=2290871
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-8cda3b9968 has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-8cda3b9968` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-8cda3b9968
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=2290871
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Last Closed| |2025-07-04 00:02:44
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-8cda3b9968 (foosnapper-1.4-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2290871
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2025-8984890145 (foosnapper-1.4-1.el10_1) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.1 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com