Spec URL: https://oddshocks.fedorapeople.org/packages/specs/python-fedimg.spec SRPM URL: https://oddshocks.fedorapeople.org/packages/srpms/python-fedimg-0.2.5-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Fedimg is a service that listens to the Fedmsg bus and uploads completed Fedora Cloud image builds to cloud providers. This version will upload images to Amazon EC2 as AMIs. This will be the initial package for Fedora. After the package is installed, /etc/fedimg.cfg must be manually configured with AWS account info and paths to public and private keys. I have tested this on a staging machine by manually installing the RPM, and it seems to work properly. This is my first package review submission, so please be critical of anything that can/should be improved. Fedora Account System Username: oddshocks
Removed the need for a sponsor, since apparently this isn't required if I already maintain or co-maintain a package, which I do.
Scratch build succeeds: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7595210
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Please change $RPM_BUILD_ROOT to just %{buildroot} See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros - Please add '-p' to your %{__cp} lines so that the timestamps of files are preserved. - Lastly, the chmod a+x does get rpmlint to be quiet, it does the opposite of what should be done. The files that go into /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/fedimg/*.py are not actually supposed to be executable scripts. They are library files. rpmlint was complaining because they had a shebang at the top (like executables do) but that they didn't have the executable bit. You gave them the executable bit to silence rpmlint, but really, they should neither have the +x bit nor should they have a shebang -- they're not programs that users go and directly run like 'ls' or 'hovercraft'. The solution here is to use 'sed' to remove the shebang in place of doing that chmod. - When you have made the above changes, you should bump the 'Release' field of your spec file from 1 to 2, you should add a new changelog entry at the bottom of your .spec file indicating that you made changes X, Y and Z due to the fedora package review, and then lastly you should re-post new links to the .spec and .srpm file here in the ticket to let people know it's up for another look. Note that the srpm will have a new file name due to the 'Release' field bump. Would be Nice to Have ===================== - There are no license headers in your files indicating they are AGPL, there is no copyright statement, and there is no indication of the author. You can probably put some boilerplate on all of them with a quick script for the next release. ===== 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". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/threebean/1142446-python-fedimg/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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 4 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 %doc. [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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-fedimg-0.2.5-1.fc20.noarch.rpm python-fedimg-0.2.5-1.fc20.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-fedimg 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
These new files should resolve all "must" and "should" items mentioned in Ralph's review: spec: https://oddshocks.fedorapeople.org/packages/specs/python-fedimg.spec srpm: https://oddshocks.fedorapeople.org/packages/srpms/python-fedimg-0.2.6-1.fc20.src.rpm
Looks good -- PACKAGE APPROVED!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-fedora Short Description: Automatically upload Fedora Cloud images to cloud providers Upstream URL: https://github.com/fedora-infra/fedimg Owners: oddshocks Branches: f19 f20 f21 epel7 InitialCC:
Whoops, that was the wrong package name: New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-fedimg Short Description: Automatically upload Fedora Cloud images to cloud providers Upstream URL: https://github.com/fedora-infra/fedimg Owners: oddshocks Branches: f19 f20 f21 epel7 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
It looks like this was successfully built for rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=578847 Are there any issues building for the other branches?
So, there is a successful update for this for el7, I'm just going to close this. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-fedimg David, in the future it would be best to close your review request bugs after the package gets built like that.
(In reply to Ralph Bean from comment #10) > So, there is a successful update for this for el7, I'm just going to close > this. > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-fedimg > > David, in the future it would be best to close your review request bugs > after the package gets built like that. Noted! Thanks for closing this, Ralph.