[Bug 2250690] New: Review Request: skupper-router - A lightweight message router, that provides backend for skupper.io

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2250690

Bug ID: 2250690
           Summary: Review Request: skupper-router - A lightweight message
                    router, that provides backend for skupper.io
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
          Hardware: All
                OS: Linux
            Status: NEW
         Component: Package Review
          Severity: medium
          Assignee: [e-mail]
          Reporter: [e-mail]
        QA Contact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail]
  Target Milestone: ---
    Classification: Fedora

Spec URL:
https://github.com/ganeshmurthy/skupper-router-rpm/blob/main/skupper-router....
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/ganeshmurthy/skupper-router-rpm/blob/main/skupper-router-...
Description: A lightweight message router, that provides backend for skupper.io
Fedora Account System Username: gmurthy

[Bug 2250690] Review Request: skupper-router - A lightweight message router, that provides backend for skupper.io

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2250690

--- Comment #1 from Ganesh Murthy  ---
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/gmurthy/skupper-router/builds/ -  A
build that succeeded on copr

[Bug 2250690] Review Request: skupper-router - A lightweight message router, that provides backend for skupper.io

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2250690

--- Comment #2 from Fedora Review Service  ---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6670536
(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.

[Bug 2250690] Review Request: skupper-router - A lightweight message router, that provides backend for skupper.io

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2250690

--- Comment #3 from Ganesh Murthy  ---
I have now packaged the skupper-router.spec file and the src rpm in this tar.gz
file =
https://github.com/ganeshmurthy/skupper-router-rpm/blob/main/skupper-router....
Please take a look

[Bug 2250690] Review Request: skupper-router - A lightweight message router, that provides backend for skupper.io

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2250690

Irina Boverman  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
           Doc Type|---                         |If docs needed, set a value

[Bug 2250690] Review Request: skupper-router - A lightweight message router, that provides backend for skupper.io

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2250690

Irina Boverman  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Assignee|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]

[Bug 2250690] Review Request: skupper-router - A lightweight message router, that provides backend for skupper.io

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2250690

--- Comment #4 from Irina Boverman  ---
I ran rpmlint -i command on all packages, please correct or explain all
warnings and errors.
Please see attached.

[Bug 2250690] Review Request: skupper-router - A lightweight message router, that provides backend for skupper.io

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2250690

Irina Boverman  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|                            |fedora-review?

[Bug 2250690] Review Request: skupper-router - A lightweight message router, that provides backend for skupper.io

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2250690

--- Comment #10 from Irina Boverman  ---
Things To Check On Review

There are many many things to check for a review. This list is provided to
assist new reviewers in identifying areas that they should look for, but is by
no means complete. Reviewers should use their own good judgement when reviewing
packages. The items listed fall into two categories: SHOULD and MUST.

MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.footnote:[Packaging
Guidelines: Use rpmlint]
See attached files.

MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
.
YES.

MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. footnote:[Packaging
Guidelines: Spec File Naming] .
YES.

MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
IN PROGRESS.

MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
YES.

MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. footnote:[Licensing Guidelines: Valid License Short Names]
YES.

MUST: 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 must be included in %license.footnote:[Licensing
Guidelines: License Text]
YES.
    MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
footnote:[Packaging Guidelines: Summary and description]
YES.

MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. footnote:[Packaging
Guidelines: Spec Legibility]
YES.

MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
NO, THERE IS NO UPSTREAM RELEASE VERSION 2.5.0.

MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture. footnote:[Packaging Guidelines: Architecture
Support]
YES.
    MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line. footnote:[Packaging Guidelines: Architecture
Build Failures]
YES

MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
footnote:[Packaging Guidelines: Build-Time Dependencies (BuildRequires)]
YES.

MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly
forbidden.footnote:[Packaging Guidelines: Handling Locale Files]
N/A.

MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system
libraries.footnote:[Packaging Guidelines: Bundling and Duplication of System
Libraries]
YES

MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker. footnote:[Packaging Guidelines: Relocatable Packages]
YES

MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory. footnote:[Packaging Guidelines: File And Directory
Ownership]
YES
    MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file’s %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)footnote:[Packaging Guidelines: Duplicate Files]
YES
    MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. footnote:[Packaging Guidelines: File
Permissions]
YES
    MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. footnote:[Packaging
Guidelines: Macros]
YES
    MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. footnote:[What
Can Be Packaged]
YES
    MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager’s best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
footnote:[Packaging Guidelines: Documentation]
YES
    MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must
run properly if it is not present. footnote:[Packaging Guidelines:
Documentation]
YES
    MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. footnote:[Packaging
Guidelines: Packaging Static Libraries]
N/A
    MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package. footnote:[Packaging
Guidelines: Devel Packages]
N/A
    MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release} footnote:[Packaging Guidelines: Requiring Base Package]
N/A

MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.footnote:[Packaging Guidelines: Packaging
Static Libraries]
YES
    MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need
a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
footnote:[Packaging Guidelines: Desktop files]
N/A
    MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with
any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you
feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another
package owns, then please present that at package review time.
footnote:[Packaging Guidelines: File and Directory Ownership]
YES
    MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
footnote:[Packaging Guidelines: Non-ASCII Filenames]
YES
    MUST: Packages being added to the distribution MUST NOT depend on any
packages which have been marked as being deprecated. footnote:[Deprecating
Packages]
YES
    SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
footnote:[Licensing Guidelines: License Text]
YES
    SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
footnote:[Using Mock to test package builds]
???
    SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures. footnote:[Packaging Guidelines: Architecture Support]
NO ExcludeArch: i686
    SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
NO
    SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is
vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
footnote:[Packaging Guidelines: Scriptlets]
YES
    SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency. footnote:[Packaging Guidelines:
Requiring Base Package]
YES
    SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and
this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg.
A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not
installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. footnote:[Packaging Guidelines:
Pkgconfig Files]
???
    SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file
instead of the file itself. footnote:[Packaging Guidelines: File and Directory
Dependencies]
???
    SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it
doesn’t, work with upstream to add them where they make
sense.footnote:[Packaging Guidelines: Manpages]
YES

[Bug 2250690] Review Request: skupper-router - A lightweight message router, that provides backend for skupper.io

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2250690

--- Comment #11 from Ganesh Murthy  ---
Here are the rpmlint errors -

[1] skupper-router-tools.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized skstat and skmanage
tools for skrouterd
[2] skupper-router-common.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
[3] skupper-router-common.noarch: W: no-documentation
[4] skupper-router.spec: W: invalid-url Source5: qpid-proton-0.39.0.tar.gz
[5] skupper-router.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: skupper-router-2.5.0.tar.gz
[6] skupper-router.spec: W: invalid-url Source5: qpid-proton-0.39.0.tar.gz
[7] skupper-router.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: skupper-router-2.5.0.tar.gz
[8] skupper-router.x86_64: W: files-duplicate
/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/skupper_router-2.5.0.post1-py3.11.egg-info/not-zip-safe
/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/skupper_router-2.5.0.post1-py3.11.egg-info/dependency_links.txt
[9] skupper-router.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl
/usr/sbin/skrouterd SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list

[1] I don't want to capitalize skstat since that is the actual command name.
This warning can be ignored
[2] This warning can be ignored, we install python files in the usr/lib folder,
this is ok
[3] All noarch have Summary section. Not sure what this is looking for.
[4] [5] [6] [7] - These specify sources not url, this warning can be ignored
[8] This warning can be ignored as well. The python build process created these
files, we did not.
[9] The skupper-router code does not call SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list. Proton is
calling this function. This can be ignored.

Additional response to your other comments - 
THERE IS NO UPSTREAM RELEASE VERSION 2.5.0 - We do have an upstream 2.5.0
release here -
https://github.com/skupperproject/skupper-router/releases/tag/2.5.0
ExcludeArch: i686 - Removed this line, so we should be good. New spec file is
here -
https://github.com/ganeshmurthy/skupper-router-rpm/blob/main/skupper-router....

Please let me know if you have any more questions.

[Bug 2250690] Review Request: skupper-router - A lightweight message router, that provides backend for skupper.io

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2250690

Irina Boverman  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

[Bug 2250690] Review Request: skupper-router - A lightweight message router, that provides backend for skupper.io

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2250690

--- Comment #12 from Fedora Review Service  ---
Hello @gmurthy,
since this is your first Fedora package, you need to get sponsored by a package
sponsor before it can be accepted.

A sponsor is an experienced package maintainer who will guide you through
the processes that you will follow and the tools that you will use as a future
maintainer. A sponsor will also be there to answer your questions related to
packaging.

You can find all active sponsors here:
https://docs.pagure.org/fedora-sponsors/

I created a sponsorship request for you:
https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors/issue/610
Please take a look and make sure the information is correct.

Thank you, and best of luck on your packaging journey.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

[Bug 2250690] Review Request: skupper-router - A lightweight message router, that provides backend for skupper.io

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2250690

Irina Boverman  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Resolution|---                         |CURRENTRELEASE
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |CLOSED
        Last Closed|                            |2024-01-09 16:45:57