[Bug 2157207] New: Review Request: obsctl - Unified high level interface for common actions with the Open Build Service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2157207
Bug ID: 2157207 Summary: Review Request: obsctl - Unified high level interface for common actions with the Open Build Service 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://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/obsctl.spec SRPM URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/obsctl-0.6.0%5egit20221231.b6e1e9...
Description: This is a command line interface to simplify the packaging and deploy process for packages built in the openSUSE Open Build Service. This utility functions in a non-interactive manner allowing it to be utilized in continuous integration and continuous deployment infrastructure.
Fedora Account System Username: ngompa
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2157207
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org
--- Comment #1 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 2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2". 20 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/obsctl/2157207-obsctl/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. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 14 files. [x]: 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 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]: 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: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: 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. [ ]: 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: obsctl-0.6.0^git20221231.b6e1e99-1.fc37.noarch.rpm obsctl-0.6.0^git20221231.b6e1e99-1.fc37.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/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/tmpwpr7ajlv')] checks: 31, packages: 2
obsctl.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary obsctl obsctl.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/obsctl/COPYING obsctl.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/obsctl/lib/__init__.py /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/obsctl/__init__.py:/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/obsctl/commands/__init__.py 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 2.4 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 1
obsctl.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary obsctl obsctl.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/obsctl/COPYING obsctl.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/obsctl/lib/__init__.py /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/obsctl/__init__.py:/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/obsctl/commands/__init__.py 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.5 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.com/datto/engineering/DevOps/obsctl/-/archive/b6e1e9963ddff0d... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1508145c16d5c3f2fc75802f3aedf1baabc20f1916965602f8a4426dd618235d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1508145c16d5c3f2fc75802f3aedf1baabc20f1916965602f8a4426dd618235d
Requires -------- obsctl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 obs-service-download_files obs-service-extract_file obs-service-set_version osc python(abi) python3.11dist(click) python3.11dist(lxml) python3.11dist(osc) python3.11dist(rpm) python3.11dist(setuptools) python3.11dist(urlgrabber)
Provides -------- obsctl: obsctl python3.11dist(obsctl) python3dist(obsctl)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2157207 -m fedora-37-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-37-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: Java, R, Ruby, Haskell, fonts, Perl, Ocaml, C/C++, PHP, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Comments: a) Might upstream update FSF address? b) Is it possible to run the smoke test? Assume it does not need network access.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2157207
--- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com ---
Comments: a) Might upstream update FSF address?
The license file is identical to what is on the gnu.org website: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt
I don't think there's anything to update here.
b) Is it possible to run the smoke test? Assume it does not need network access.
No. It requires communication with a running Open Build Service instance to do anything and will fail to execute with no server to talk to.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2157207
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #3 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- a) Updating address checking tools, FSF address is valid, though licenses newer than GPL2 exist which do not have the address. b) obsctl --help will run without network access. It is not essential, but would be a nice addition either as a unit test or just directly within the spec file. Leave decision to add or not upto you.
Approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2157207
--- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/obsctl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2157207
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-5101e4362c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-5101e4362c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2157207
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-8555f63a35 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-8555f63a35
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2157207
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2023-01-06 00:53:38
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-8555f63a35 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2157207
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-5101e4362c has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com