[Bug 1289970] New: Review Request: python-openstacksdk - An SDK for building applications to work with OpenStack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289970
Bug ID: 1289970 Summary: Review Request: python-openstacksdk - An SDK for building applications to work with OpenStack Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jpena@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/python-openstacksdk/python-openstacksdk.spec SRPM URL: https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/python-openstacksdk/python-openstacksdk-0.7.1... Description: A collection of libraries for building applications to work with OpenStack clouds. Fedora Account System Username: jpena
Koji scratch build available at http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12124583
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289970
Javier Peña jpena@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1243533 | |(RDO-LIBERTY-REVIEWS)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243533 [Bug 1243533] (RDO) Tracker: Review requests for new RDO Liberty packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289970
--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- jpena's scratch build of python-openstacksdk-0.7.1-2.fc24.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12135967
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289970
--- Comment #2 from Javier Peña jpena@redhat.com --- I have updated the spec file to fix a small issue.
SPEC: https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/python-openstacksdk/python-openstacksdk.spec SRPM: https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/python-openstacksdk/python-openstacksdk-0.7.1...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289970
Alan Pevec apevec@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |apevec@redhat.com Blocks|1243533 |1290163 |(RDO-LIBERTY-REVIEWS) |(RDO-MITAKA-REVIEWS)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243533 [Bug 1243533] (RDO) Tracker: Review requests for new RDO Liberty packages https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290163 [Bug 1290163] Tracker: Review requests for new RDO Mitaka packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289970
Paul Belanger pabelanger@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pabelanger@redhat.com
--- Comment #3 from Paul Belanger pabelanger@redhat.com --- Learning the ropes, so here is a review. Only major thing was a few lint warnings. Plus the failures reported my fedora-review.
All in all, looks good.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages, /usr/lib/python3.5 [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.5/site- packages, /usr/lib/python3.5 [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python2.7/site- packages/openstack(python-openstack-nose-plugin) [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. [x]: 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. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files. [ ]: 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]: 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
Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
===== 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. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2-openstacksdk , python2-openstacksdk-tests , python3-openstacksdk , python3-openstacksdk-tests , python- openstacksdk-doc [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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]: 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: [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: python2-openstacksdk-0.7.1-2.fc24.noarch.rpm python2-openstacksdk-tests-0.7.1-2.fc24.noarch.rpm python3-openstacksdk-0.7.1-2.fc24.noarch.rpm python3-openstacksdk-tests-0.7.1-2.fc24.noarch.rpm python-openstacksdk-doc-0.7.1-2.fc24.noarch.rpm python-openstacksdk-0.7.1-2.fc24.src.rpm python2-openstacksdk-tests.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-openstacksdk-tests.noarch: W: no-documentation 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python2-openstacksdk-tests.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-openstacksdk-tests.noarch: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Requires -------- python3-openstacksdk (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-keystoneauth1 python3-os-client-config python3-oslo-utils python3-six python3-stevedore
python2-openstacksdk-tests (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python2-openstacksdk
python3-openstacksdk-tests (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-openstacksdk
python2-openstacksdk (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-keystoneauth1 python-os-client-config python-oslo-utils python-six python-stevedore
python-openstacksdk-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- python3-openstacksdk: python3-openstacksdk
python2-openstacksdk-tests: python2-openstacksdk-tests
python3-openstacksdk-tests: python3-openstacksdk-tests
python2-openstacksdk: python-openstacksdk python-openstacksdk(x86-64) python2-openstacksdk
python-openstacksdk-doc: python-openstacksdk-doc
Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/o/openstacksdk/openstacksdk-0.7.1.ta... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 620b4303a2742e17605427772e6468cb59bb36ee3ca74b41aeec2226e06fc842 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 620b4303a2742e17605427772e6468cb59bb36ee3ca74b41aeec2226e06fc842
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1289970 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289970
--- Comment #4 from Javier Peña jpena@redhat.com --- Thanks for the review Paul. The rpmlint messages are expected, all but two are related to python3.5 compiled files, and the remaining two state no documentation in the -tests subpackages, which depend on the base packages so there is documentation already.
Also, the fully versioned dependencies note is expected, the -doc subpackage should not depend on anything, and the -tests subpackages already depend on their base packages, so I'd say it is correct.
I have uploaded a new version (with minor corrections):
SPEC: https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/python-openstacksdk/python-openstacksdk.spec SRPM: https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/python-openstacksdk/python-openstacksdk-0.7.1...
I see there is a newer 0.7.3 version available upstream, but this one depends on openstackdocstheme, which is not packaged yet and has sparked some concerns in the community (due to external resources being loaded and usage by default of Google Analytics).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289970
hguemar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |hguemar@redhat.com
--- Comment #5 from hguemar@redhat.com --- Missing BR to python-setuptools, this is important as it causes build failures on EL. It's a known issue but Fedora buildroot includes it, hence no build failures.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289970
--- Comment #6 from Javier Peña jpena@redhat.com --- Thanks Haikel, I've fixed that. Updated files:
SPEC: https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/python-openstacksdk/python-openstacksdk.spec SRPM: https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/python-openstacksdk/python-openstacksdk-0.7.1...
Still using the older 0.7.1 version because of the dependency on openstackdocstheme.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289970
--- Comment #7 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- jpena's scratch build of python-openstacksdk-0.7.1-4.fc24.src.rpm for rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13115129
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289970
--- Comment #8 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- jpena's scratch build of python-openstacksdk-0.7.1-4.fc24.src.rpm for rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13115228
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289970
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST CC| |zbyszek@in.waw.pl Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zbyszek@in.waw.pl Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl --- You don't need to repeat the Summary text. After the first instance you can refer the the previous one with %{summary}. And for tests you you can use "Summary: %{summary} - test files".
Also, "An " in the summary is not useful, listings look better without the article.
Very nice package.
+ license is acceptable (ASL 2) + license file is present, %license is used - not the latest version (0.7.4 is latest on pypi) + no scriptlets + %check is present and passes + rpmlint is happy (only no-documentation warning) + provides and requires seem right
Package is APPROVED.
Please update to the latest version.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289970
--- Comment #10 from Javier Peña jpena@redhat.com --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #9)
You don't need to repeat the Summary text. After the first instance you can refer the the previous one with %{summary}. And for tests you you can use "Summary: %{summary} - test files".
Also, "An " in the summary is not useful, listings look better without the article.
Very nice package.
- license is acceptable (ASL 2)
- license file is present, %license is used
- not the latest version (0.7.4 is latest on pypi)
- no scriptlets
- %check is present and passes
- rpmlint is happy (only no-documentation warning)
- provides and requires seem right
Package is APPROVED.
Please update to the latest version.
About the latest version, it introduces a dependency on openstackdocstheme, which is not packaged yet. I remember there were some concerns due to its usage of Google Analytics and the fact it includes files from external references. Should I go ahead and get a package review for that dependency first?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289970
--- Comment #11 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl --- I think packaging openstackdocstheme would be the way forward. After all, staying on an old version of openstacksdk is not attractive.
Commit https://review.openstack.org/#/c/253592/ in openstackdocstheme seems to avoid the issue of google analytics. I think you should patch the config file in Fedora to have it off by default.
If you decide to add openstackdocstheme, I'm happy to review. Please add me in CC.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289970
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |1314401
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1314401 [Bug 1314401] Review Request: python-openstackdocstheme - OpenStack Docs Theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289970
--- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/python-openstacksdk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289970 Bug 1289970 depends on bug 1314401, which changed state.
Bug 1314401 Summary: Review Request: python-openstackdocstheme - OpenStack Docs Theme https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1314401
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289970
Sat6QE Jenkins sat6-jenkins@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289970
Mike McCune mmccune@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |POST
--- Comment #13 from Mike McCune mmccune@redhat.com --- This bug was accidentally moved from POST to MODIFIED via an error in automation, please see mmccune@redhat.com with any questions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289970
hguemar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2016-04-08 05:24:07
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla