[Bug 1922869] New: Review Request: transactional-update - Transactional Updates with btrfs and snapshots
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922869
Bug ID: 1922869 Summary: Review Request: transactional-update - Transactional Updates with btrfs and snapshots Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ngompa13@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ngompa/transactional-upda... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ngompa/transactional-upda... Description: Transactional Updates with btrfs and snapshots.
Fedora Account System Username: ngompa
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922869
Carl George 🤠 carl@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |carl@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |carl@redhat.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922869
--- Comment #1 from Carl George 🤠 carl@redhat.com --- What's the purpose of the %_distconfdir macro? Gentle reminder that only Fedora and EPEL macros are allowed in Fedora spec files [0].
From how I'm reading the upstream license [1], there needs to be some license adjustments in the spec file. The -libs and -devel subpackages are "GPLv2+ or LGPLv2+", and need the license field and %license files to reflect that. Everything else is just GPLv2+.
[0] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_spec_legibility [1] https://github.com/openSUSE/transactional-update/blob/v3.0.0/COPYING
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922869
--- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- (In reply to Carl George 🤠 from comment #1)
What's the purpose of the %_distconfdir macro? Gentle reminder that only Fedora and EPEL macros are allowed in Fedora spec files [0].
Right, %_distconfdir is something from openSUSE, which points to /usr/etc[1]. I can, of course, drop it and just change it back to %_prefix/%_sysconfdir, since I'm only using it to delete stuff right now.
[1]: https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_UsrEtc
From how I'm reading the upstream license [1], there needs to be some license adjustments in the spec file. The -libs and -devel subpackages are "GPLv2+ or LGPLv2+", and need the license field and %license files to reflect that. Everything else is just GPLv2+.
[0] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_spec_legibility [1] https://github.com/openSUSE/transactional-update/blob/v3.0.0/COPYING
The source package includes all the things, so I put the "GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+" term there, while appropriately setting the licenses (GPLv2+ or LGPLv2+) for each subpackage based on what the headers in the files said for each subpackage.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922869
--- Comment #3 from Carl George 🤠 carl@redhat.com --- Per guidelines [0], the license field refers to the license of the contents of the binary rpm. I'm not sure how we handle that for the top level license when there is no binary package corresponding to the top level package (no %files section). Since several subpackages have tukit in their name, would it make more sense to use tukit as the top level package name?
Based on the COPYING file tukit-libs and tukit-devel are "GPLv2+ or LGPLv2+". If you believe that contradicts the header text in the relevant files please raise the issue upstream.
[0] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuideline...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922869
--- Comment #4 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- (In reply to Carl George 🤠 from comment #3)
Per guidelines [0], the license field refers to the license of the contents of the binary rpm. I'm not sure how we handle that for the top level license when there is no binary package corresponding to the top level package (no %files section). Since several subpackages have tukit in their name, would it make more sense to use tukit as the top level package name?
It's entirely possible in the future that transactional-update will become a binary package if the stuff is adapted for non-SUSE distributions. For now, I'd like to leave this as-is.
Based on the COPYING file tukit-libs and tukit-devel are "GPLv2+ or LGPLv2+". If you believe that contradicts the header text in the relevant files please raise the issue upstream.
[0] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ LicensingGuidelines/#_license_field
I definitely will talk to upstream about this to clarify it, but I'll go ahead an update it to match the COPYING file.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922869
--- Comment #5 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Updated spec and SRPM:
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ngompa/transactional-upda... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ngompa/transactional-upda...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922869
--- Comment #6 from Carl George 🤠 carl@redhat.com --- Outstanding items to fix:
- %_distconfdir still needs to be removed. - License breakdown comment is inaccurate. - fedora-review complains about an obsolete m4 macro (AC_PROG_LIBTOOL) in configure.ac, line 40 - tukit links against libtukit.so.0, so the explicit requirement on tukit-libs is not necessary. - %systemd_postun evaluates to %nil, should that be %systemd_postun_with_restart? If not then consider just removing %post -n tukit, as it's causing an rpmlint warning.
There are two other rpmlint warnings that I'm not sure about, if you know a way to clear them up we should try to do that.
- dracut-transactional-update.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib - tukit-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libtukit.so.0.1.0 /lib64/libm.so.6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922869
--- Comment #7 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Updated spec and SRPM:
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ngompa/transactional-upda... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ngompa/transactional-upda...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922869
--- Comment #8 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- (In reply to Carl George 🤠 from comment #6)
Outstanding items to fix:
- %_distconfdir still needs to be removed.
Done.
- License breakdown comment is inaccurate.
Done.
- fedora-review complains about an obsolete m4 macro (AC_PROG_LIBTOOL) in
configure.ac, line 40
Done. Submitted fix upstream: https://github.com/openSUSE/transactional-update/pull/54
- tukit links against libtukit.so.0, so the explicit requirement on
tukit-libs is not necessary.
This is a common thing done in Fedora when you want to guarantee they're updated together, especially as I don't know what the interface boundaries are for tukit with libtukit, so I prefer to keep the explicit dependency.
- %systemd_postun evaluates to %nil, should that be
%systemd_postun_with_restart? If not then consider just removing %post -n tukit, as it's causing an rpmlint warning.
I removed the scriptlet to resolve this.
There are two other rpmlint warnings that I'm not sure about, if you know a way to clear them up we should try to do that.
- dracut-transactional-update.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
- tukit-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libtukit.so.0.1.0 /lib64/libm.so.6
No idea how to deal with this.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922869
--- Comment #9 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Updated spec and SRPM:
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ngompa/transactional-upda... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ngompa/transactional-upda...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922869
--- Comment #10 from Carl George 🤠 carl@redhat.com ---
This is a common thing done in Fedora when you want to guarantee they're updated together, especially as I don't know what the interface boundaries are for tukit with libtukit, so I prefer to keep the explicit dependency.
The guidelines say not to do this with libraries [0], but that seems more targeted at libraries that are not part of the same spec file. It's understandable to want these subpackages to always be updated together, so I won't block on this.
No idea how to deal with this.
I found some notes on how to fix it [1]. It's just a warning so we don't need to block on it, but try to fix later if you can.
[0] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_explicit_require... [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#unused-direct-shlib-dep...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922869
Carl George 🤠 carl@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #11 from Carl George 🤠 carl@redhat.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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. Licenses found: "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "FSF All Permissive License", "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "GNU General Public License". 54 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/carl/packaging/reviews/transactional-update/copr- build-1938854/review-transactional-update/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/systemd/system, /usr/lib/systemd [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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. [x]: 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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: 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 40960 bytes in 4 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: 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]: 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]: 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 tukit [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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in tukit , dracut-transactional-update , tukit-libs , tukit-devel [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: tukit-3.1.0-0.fc34.1.x86_64.rpm dracut-transactional-update-3.1.0-0.fc34.1.noarch.rpm tukit-libs-3.1.0-0.fc34.1.x86_64.rpm tukit-devel-3.1.0-0.fc34.1.x86_64.rpm transactional-update-debuginfo-3.1.0-0.fc34.1.x86_64.rpm transactional-update-debugsource-3.1.0-0.fc34.1.x86_64.rpm transactional-update-3.1.0-0.fc34.1.src.rpm tukit.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) transactional -> transaction, transnational, transitional tukit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary create_dirs_from_rpmdb tukit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tukit dracut-transactional-update.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib tukit-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) transactional -> transaction, transnational, transitional tukit-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US transactional -> transaction, transnational, transitional tukit-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation tukit-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US transactional -> transaction, transnational, transitional tukit-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation transactional-update.src:83: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/dracut transactional-update.src:84: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/dracut/modules.d transactional-update.src:85: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/dracut/modules.d/50transactional-update/ 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 10 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: transactional-update-debuginfo-3.1.0-0.fc34.1.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- dracut-transactional-update.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib tukit-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US transactional -> transaction, transnational, transitional tukit-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation tukit.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) transactional -> transaction, transnational, transitional tukit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary create_dirs_from_rpmdb tukit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tukit tukit-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) transactional -> transaction, transnational, transitional tukit-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US transactional -> transaction, transnational, transitional tukit-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libtukit.so.0.1.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 tukit-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922869
--- Comment #12 from Mohan Boddu mboddu@bhujji.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/transactional-update
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922869
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1936188
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936188 [Bug 1936188] Review Request: libdnf-plugin-txnupd - Plugin for libdnf to implement transactional updates
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922869
Carl George 🤠 carl@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Fixed In Version| |transactional-update-3.2.0- | |1.fc35 Last Closed| |2022-01-26 08:22:26
--- Comment #13 from Carl George 🤠 carl@redhat.com --- https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-36add81e7b
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com