[Bug 2268405] New: Review Request: python3-badfish - Badfish is a vendor-agnostic, redfish-based API tool used to consolidate management of IPMI and out-of-band interfaces for common server hardware vendors.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268405
Bug ID: 2268405 Summary: Review Request: python3-badfish - Badfish is a vendor-agnostic, redfish-based API tool used to consolidate management of IPMI and out-of-band interfaces for common server hardware vendors. Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: grafuls@redhat.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/quadsdev/python3-badfish/... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/quadsdev/python3-badfish/... Description: Badfish is a vendor-agnostic, redfish-based API tool used to consolidate management of IPMI and out-of-band interfaces for common server hardware vendors. Fedora Account System Username: quadsdev
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268405
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268405
--- Comment #1 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPLv3'. It seems that you are using the old Fedora license abbreviations. Try `license-fedora2spdx' for converting it to SPDX. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1
===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version 3", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3", "MIT License". 61 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2268405-python3-badfish/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages, /usr/lib/python3.12 [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). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: 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. [-]: 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 37631 bytes in 1 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]: 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]: 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]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python: [ ]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [ ]: 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]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0: https://github.com/redhat- performance/badfish/archive/v1.0.2/python3-badfish-1.0.2.tar.gz See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/SourceURL/ [ ]: 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. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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. [ ]: 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]: 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: python3-badfish-1.0.2-git.20231102_101116.fc41.noarch.rpm python3-badfish-1.0.2-git.20231102_101116.fc41.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/tmp88uxiazn')] checks: 32, packages: 2
python3-badfish.noarch: E: summary-too-long Badfish is a Redfish-based API tool for managing bare-metal systems via the Redfish API python3-badfish.src: E: summary-too-long Badfish is a Redfish-based API tool for managing bare-metal systems via the Redfish API python3-badfish.noarch: E: spelling-error ('redfish', '%description -l en_US redfish -> reddish, red fish, red-fish') python3-badfish.src: E: spelling-error ('redfish', '%description -l en_US redfish -> reddish, red fish, red-fish') python3-badfish.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/badfish/main.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 python3-badfish.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary badfish 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 1 warnings, 10 filtered, 5 badness; has taken 0.3 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ 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 checks: 32, packages: 1
python3-badfish.noarch: E: summary-too-long Badfish is a Redfish-based API tool for managing bare-metal systems via the Redfish API python3-badfish.noarch: E: spelling-error ('redfish', '%description -l en_US redfish -> reddish, red fish, red-fish') python3-badfish.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/badfish/main.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 python3-badfish.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary badfish 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 1 warnings, 6 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Requires -------- python3-badfish (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.12dist(aiohttp) python3.12dist(pyyaml) python3.12dist(setuptools)
Provides -------- python3-badfish: python-badfish python3-badfish python3.12-badfish python3.12dist(badfish) python3dist(badfish)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2268405 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Haskell, PHP, R, fonts, C/C++, Java, Ocaml, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments: a) The name seems to be used for another package in pypi: https://pypi.org/project/badfish/ perhaps use a different package name, eg. quads-badfish and also put the package on pypi to prevent name collisions. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_pypi_pari... b) Could the new Python packaging guidelines be used: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ c) Can any of the tests be run? If not, can the package be imported? See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_tests d) Please use SPDX license identifier either GPL-3.0-only or GPL-3.0-or-later e) Build log has the following: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/setuptools/_distutils/cmd.py:66: SetuptoolsDeprecationWarning: setup.py install is deprecated. !!
******************************************************************************** Please avoid running ``setup.py`` directly. Instead, use pypa/build, pypa/installer or other standards-based tools. Follow the current Python packaging guidelines when building Python RPM packages. See https://blog.ganssle.io/articles/2021/10/setup-py-deprecated.html and https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ for details.
******************************************************************************** !!
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org has canceled Package Review package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org's request for Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org's needinfo: Bug 2268405: Review Request: python3-badfish - Badfish is a vendor-agnostic, redfish-based API tool used to consolidate management of IPMI and out-of-band interfaces for common server hardware vendors. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268405
--- Comment #3 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Happy to continue the review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268405
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org) |
--- Comment #3 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Happy to continue the review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268405
Gonza grafuls@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org)
--- Comment #4 from Gonza grafuls@redhat.com --- Thank you for looking into this. I believe the 3 standing issues have now been resolved. Can we please have it rechecked? Regards
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268405
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org) |
--- Comment #5 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/quadsdev/python3-badfish/... srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/quadsdev/python3-badfish/...
There is still a name conflict on PyPI: https://pypi.org/project/badfish/ Raised issue upstream: https://github.com/redhat-performance/badfish/issues/437
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268405
--- Comment #6 from Gonza grafuls@redhat.com --- After no response from the original owner of the badfish project on PyPi we decided to go for a rename to pybadfish.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/quadsdev/python3-pybadfis... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/quadsdev/python3-pybadfis... Description: Badfish is a vendor-agnostic, redfish-based API tool used to consolidate management of IPMI and out-of-band interfaces for common server hardware vendors. Fedora Account System Username: quadsdev
Can we please have this evaluated once more? Thanks in advance.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268405
Will Foster wfoster@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |wfoster@redhat.com
--- Comment #7 from Will Foster wfoster@redhat.com --- We had initial contact with the owner of the 9+ years defunct "badfish" pip namespace but they stopped responding and also tried to chase this down via pypi admins: https://discuss.python.org/t/how-can-we-petition-for-removal-of-a-defunct-un...
We ended up just making a new pip project namespace: pybadfish
So long as the links to our sources are accurate can we still use the "badfish" package name for Fedora via %define name badfish via RPM spec?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268405
--- Comment #8 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Guidelines indicate the name should be python-pybadfish
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_naming [fedora-review-service-build]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268405
--- Comment #9 from Will Foster wfoster@redhat.com ---
Guidelines indicate the name should be python-pybadfish
Hey Benson, we understand. Would it be possible to seek an exception due to extenuating circumstances? We've used the "badfish" name since 2018 and doesn't seem ideal to rename it just because the pypi namespace is held by a defunct student project. We even got written agreement initially from the person who owns pypi badfish namespace but they ghosted us.
If it's' not possible that's fine - we'd love to proceed with getting this added to Fedora. Thanks for you time.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268405
--- Comment #10 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- The Fedora component name can be badfish but the package needs to match what is in pypi so should be python3-pybadfish, as an example see: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/PyYAML/blob/rawhide/f/PyYAML.spec
If things change upstream, it is possible to rename later https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Renaming_Pr...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268405
--- Comment #11 from Will Foster wfoster@redhat.com --- Hey Benson, we understand. Our upstream is Github not Pypi though, but let's proceed with python3-pybadfish as-is then if that doesn't matter. Thank you.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268405
--- Comment #12 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- You could probably also consider adding Provides: badfish = %{version}-%{release} to the spec file, which would allow one to use `dnf install badfish`
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268405
--- Comment #13 from Will Foster wfoster@redhat.com --- (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #12)
You could probably also consider adding Provides: badfish = %{version}-%{release} to the spec file, which would allow one to use `dnf install badfish`
That's a great suggestion Benson, we are going to push this to our spec file now - thank you!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268405
--- Comment #14 from Will Foster wfoster@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/quadsdev/python3-pybadfis... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/quadsdev/python3-pybadfis... Description: Badfish is a vendor-agnostic, redfish-based API tool used to consolidate management of IPMI and out-of-band interfaces for common server hardware vendors. Fedora Account System Username: quadsdev
Updated with Benson's suggestion which works great.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268405
--- Comment #15 from Will Foster wfoster@redhat.com --- We're still making some adjustments to the final spec file to include additional test coverage - WIP but being actively worked on - more to follow soon.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268405
--- Comment #16 from Will Foster wfoster@redhat.com --- Here is the latest rawhide spec and src rpm, this is ready for final review now.
-------------- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/quadsdev/python3-pybadfis... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/quadsdev/python3-pybadfis... Description: Badfish is a vendor-agnostic, redfish-based API tool used to consolidate management of IPMI and out-of-band interfaces for common server hardware vendors. Fedora Account System Username: quadsdev --------------
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268405
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- There seems to be some problem with the following file. SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/quadsdev/python3-badfish/... Fetching it results in a 404 Not Found error. Please make sure the URL is correct and publicly available.
--- 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=2268405
--- Comment #18 from Will Foster wfoster@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/quadsdev/python3-pybadfis... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/quadsdev/python3-pybadfis... Description: Badfish is a vendor-agnostic, redfish-based API tool used to consolidate management of IPMI and out-of-band interfaces for common server hardware vendors. Fedora Account System Username: quadsdev
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268405
--- Comment #19 from Gonza grafuls@redhat.com --- We just got word from the original owner of python3-badfish that he deleted his project from PyPi so we went ahead and took the name over. I hope there is still time to go back to the original naming. Very sorry for the inconvenience.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/quadsdev/python3-badfish/... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/quadsdev/python3-badfish/... Description: Badfish is a vendor-agnostic, redfish-based API tool used to consolidate management of IPMI and out-of-band interfaces for common server hardware vendors. Fedora Account System Username: quadsdev
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268405
--- Comment #20 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Initial comments: a) For the package name please use either badfish or python-badfish not python3-badfish
This should be used in the spec file and in the title of the review request.
b) Please use the python packaging macros, in particular change the last section of the spec file to
%install %pyproject_install %pyproject_save_files -l %{project}
%check %pytest
%files -n %{name} -f %{pyproject_files} %doc README.md %{_bindir}/%{project}
c) It seems easier to run tests just with %pytest rather than with tox as tox will try to utilize many different environments and install these using pip which will not work on Koji as the builds are offline. If %pytest is insufficient there is a %tox macro that may work.
d) An example koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=138256547
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268405
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9703015 (failed)
Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.
- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field
--- 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=2268405
--- Comment #22 from Gonza grafuls@redhat.com --- (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #20)
Initial comments: a) For the package name please use either badfish or python-badfish not python3-badfish
This should be used in the spec file and in the title of the review request.
b) Please use the python packaging macros, in particular change the last section of the spec file to
%install %pyproject_install %pyproject_save_files -l %{project}
%check %pytest
%files -n %{name} -f %{pyproject_files} %doc README.md %{_bindir}/%{project}
c) It seems easier to run tests just with %pytest rather than with tox as tox will try to utilize many different environments and install these using pip which will not work on Koji as the builds are offline. If %pytest is insufficient there is a %tox macro that may work.
d) An example koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=138256547
We are going with plain badfish for the package name. Made the suggested amendments.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/quadsdev/badfish/fedora-r... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/quadsdev/badfish/fedora-r... Description: Badfish is a vendor-agnostic, redfish-based API tool used to consolidate management of IPMI and out-of-band interfaces for common server hardware vendors. Fedora Account System Username: quadsdev
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268405
Gonza grafuls@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: badfish - |python3-badfish - Badfish |Badfish is a |is a vendor-agnostic, |vendor-agnostic, |redfish-based API tool used |redfish-based API tool used |to consolidate management |to consolidate management |of IPMI and out-of-band |of IPMI and out-of-band |interfaces for common |interfaces for common |server hardware vendors. |server hardware vendors.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268405
--- Comment #23 from Gonza grafuls@redhat.com --- Just wanted to check if this is still on track or if we are missing anything. Thanks in advance.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268405
--- Comment #24 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- [fedora-review-service-build]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268405
--- Comment #25 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- There seems to be some problem with the following file. SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/quadsdev/badfish/fedora-r... Fetching it results in a 404 Not Found error. Please make sure the URL is correct and publicly available.
--- 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=2268405
--- Comment #26 from Gonza grafuls@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/quadsdev/badfish/fedora-r... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/quadsdev/badfish/fedora-r... Description: Badfish is a vendor-agnostic, redfish-based API tool used to consolidate management of IPMI and out-of-band interfaces for common server hardware vendors. Fedora Account System Username: quadsdev
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268405
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #28 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9816031 (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=2268405
--- Comment #29 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9816033 (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=2268405
--- Comment #30 from Will Foster wfoster@redhat.com --- Hello, there are no issues - everything looks good. We can also confirm the RPM builds fine in mock.
[X]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268405
--- Comment #31 from Gonza grafuls@redhat.com --- Hello, we are holding some additional releases for Badfish so as not to break the links for the Spec and SRPM urls. Can this be moved forward or is there something else required from our side?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268405
--- Comment #32 from Will Foster wfoster@redhat.com --- Hey folks, we are ready for a final review of badfish. Please let us know if we need to provide anything else here. Thank you for all your help.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268405
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #33 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version 3", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3", "MIT License". 72 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/badfish/2268405- badfish/licensecheck.txt [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.14, /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [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. [-]: 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 39223 bytes in 1 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python: [-]: 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]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [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. [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. [x]: %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: badfish-1.0.6-git.20251020_123704.fc44.noarch.rpm badfish-1.0.6-git.20251020_123704.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpc14zizam')] checks: 32, packages: 2
badfish.noarch: E: summary-too-long Badfish is a Redfish-based API tool for managing bare-metal systems via the Redfish API badfish.src: E: summary-too-long Badfish is a Redfish-based API tool for managing bare-metal systems via the Redfish API badfish.noarch: E: spelling-error ('redfish', '%description -l en_US redfish -> reddish, red fish, red-fish') badfish.src: E: spelling-error ('redfish', '%description -l en_US redfish -> reddish, red fish, red-fish') badfish.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/badfish/main.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 badfish.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary badfish badfish.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary Badfish badfish.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary Badfish 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 3 warnings, 7 filtered, 5 badness; has taken 0.7 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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
badfish.noarch: E: summary-too-long Badfish is a Redfish-based API tool for managing bare-metal systems via the Redfish API badfish.noarch: E: spelling-error ('redfish', '%description -l en_US redfish -> reddish, red fish, red-fish') badfish.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/badfish/main.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 badfish.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary badfish badfish.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary Badfish 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 2 warnings, 3 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/redhat-performance/badfish/releases/download/v1.0.6/badfi... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6f877cc1d8a04d9798a6fc7c4594411cffa71352db0259cac5375a93aeeb3dce CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6f877cc1d8a04d9798a6fc7c4594411cffa71352db0259cac5375a93aeeb3dce
Requires -------- badfish (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.14dist(aiohttp) python3.14dist(pyyaml) python3.14dist(setuptools)
Provides -------- badfish: badfish python3.14dist(badfish) python3dist(badfish)
Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2268405 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: PHP, Haskell, fonts, R, Ocaml, C/C++, Perl, SugarActivity, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments: a) Please shorten the summary, perhaps: Tool for managing bare-metal systems via the Redfish API is sufficient b) Most dependencies other than test dependencies can be automatically generated. Tox is not needed. Please change
BuildArch: noarch BuildRequires: %{py3_dist setuptools} BuildRequires: %{py3_dist pip} BuildRequires: python3-devel BuildRequires: zlib-devel BuildRequires: python3dist(pytest) BuildRequires: python3dist(pytest-asyncio) BuildRequires: python3dist(pyyaml) BuildRequires: python3dist(aiohttp) BuildRequires: python3dist(tox) Provides: badfish = %{version}-%{release} %generate_buildrequires %pyproject_buildrequires
%description %{desc}
%prep %autosetup -n %{name}-%{version}
%build
to
BuildArch: noarch BuildRequires: python3-devel BuildRequires: zlib-devel BuildRequires: python3dist(pytest) BuildRequires: python3dist(pytest-asyncio) BuildRequires: python3dist(pyyaml) BuildRequires: python3dist(aiohttp) Provides: badfish = %{version}-%{release}
%description %{desc}
%prep %autosetup -n %{name}-%{version}
%generate_buildrequires %pyproject_buildrequires
%build
Example build with changes: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=141474762 Pull request: https://github.com/redhat-performance/badfish/pull/482
c) Why is zlib-devel required? It might be cleaner to use python bindings to zlib.
d) Approved. Please fix (a) and (b) before import. Consider implementing (c).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268405
--- Comment #34 from Gonza grafuls@redhat.com --- Addressed the remaining issues with the suggested changes.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/quadsdev/badfish/fedora-r... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/quadsdev/badfish/fedora-r... Description: Badfish is a vendor-agnostic, redfish-based API tool used to consolidate management of IPMI and out-of-band interfaces for common server hardware vendors. Fedora Account System Username: quadsdev
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268405
--- Comment #35 from Will Foster wfoster@redhat.com --- Updated package build (we redid our CI, have 100% automated CD now and push to pypi as well)
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/quadsdev/badfish/fedora-r... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/quadsdev/badfish/fedora-r... Description: Badfish is a vendor-agnostic, redfish-based API tool used to consolidate management of IPMI and out-of-band interfaces for common server hardware vendors. Fedora Account System Username: quadsdev
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268405
--- Comment #36 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- To import the package, please follow from step 9 in: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/New_Package_Process...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268405
--- Comment #37 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Gonza You will need to get sponsored into the packager group: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/New_Package_Process...
If you would like me to do this, please do mock reviews of three packages and link to them here.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268405
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268405
--- Comment #38 from Gonza grafuls@redhat.com --- Thanks Benson and sorry for the delay. Here are the 3 review. Please let me know if I am missing anything.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2452955 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2450278 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2440151
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268405
--- Comment #39 from Will Foster wfoster@redhat.com --- Hi Benson, anything else that we need to satisfy? Thank you.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268405
--- Comment #40 from Gonza grafuls@redhat.com --- Updated package build (a couple bug fixes and a few RFEs)
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/quadsdev/badfish/fedora-r... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/quadsdev/badfish/fedora-r... Description: Badfish is a vendor-agnostic, redfish-based API tool used to consolidate management of IPMI and out-of-band interfaces for common server hardware vendors. Fedora Account System Username: quadsdev
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268405
--- Comment #41 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Gonza,
Reviews seem ok, though typically it is helpful to fill in most of the fields in the review template. Can you do one more review and check conditions in the MUST category? There may still be false errors, will find out about these as you package more things or do more reviews.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268405
--- Comment #42 from Gonza grafuls@redhat.com --- Hi Benson,
Sorry for the delay. I've been caught up on work. Here is another review covering all MUST.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2500956
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com