Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 1853217
Summary: | Review Request: ServiceReport - a tool to validate and repair system configuration for specific purposes | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Sourabh Jain <sourabhjain> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <zebob.m> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | bugproxy, dan, hannsj_uhl, hegdevasant, package-review, zebob.m |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | zebob.m:
fedora-review+
|
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | ppc64le | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2020-08-12 16:56:33 UTC | Type: | Bug |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | 1789854, 1860811 | ||
Bug Blocks: | 1071880 |
Description
Sourabh Jain
2020-07-02 08:05:56 UTC
Hello Team, This is not a brand new request to include the ServiceReport tool in Fedora32. Earlier we have been tracking this request via the BZ link mentioned below. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1789854 There was some issue related to reporter of the BZ so need to create a new request, soon we will close the older request. Thanks, Sourabh Jain Hello, The updated SPEC file and source RPM package is available here: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jainsourabh/ServiceReport/fedora-32-x86_64/01516304-ServiceReport/ Please let me know if any changes required in the SPEC file. Thanks, Sourabh Jain - Don't define variable that should be defined in the Header: %global name ServiceReport %global version 2.2.2 %global release 2 Name: %{name} Summary: A tool to validate and repair First Failure Data Capture (FFDC) configuration Version: %{version} Release: %{release} - Remove this file, it is installed with %doc rm -rf %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/servicereport/README.md If you're upstream, consider removing its installation or fixing where it is installed: it should be in ServiceReport not servicereport. - Don't: BuildRequires: python3 python-rpm-macros BuildRequires: python-devel Instead depend on python3-devel: BuildRequires: python3-devel - Not needed: Requires: python3 - Missing dist tag in Release: Release: %{release}%{?dist} - I don't know what these scriptlets are: %preun %service_del_preun servicereport.service %postun %service_del_postun servicereport.service The correct ones are: %post %systemd_post servicereport.service %preun %systemd_preun servicereport.service %postun %systemd_postun servicereport.service Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel - 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. Note: Unversionned Python dependency found. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Python/#_dependencies - Dist tag is present. - 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 ServiceReport See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets ===== 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: "GNU Lesser General Public License", "Unknown or generated". 30 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/ServiceReport/review- ServiceReport/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. [x]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 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 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]: 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]: 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. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [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. [-]: 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]: 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: ServiceReport-2.2.2-2.noarch.rpm ServiceReport-2.2.2-2.src.rpm ServiceReport.noarch: W: percent-in-%preun ServiceReport.noarch: W: percent-in-%postun 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Also you need to find a sponsor to enter the Packager group: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group Hello Robert-André, Thanks for the review. > > - Remove this file, it is installed with %doc > > rm -rf %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/servicereport/README.md > > If you're upstream, consider removing its installation or fixing where it is > installed: it should be in ServiceReport not servicereport. We would prefer to install README.md file instead of removing it. I patched the above issue and updated the installation directory of README.md file to ServiceReport. Util the patch hits upstream can we use source code tarball that comes with src RPM package? Please find the updated SPEC file and src rpm package here: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jainsourabh/ServiceReport/fedora-32-x86_64/01518815-ServiceReport/ Thanks, Sourabh Jain LGTM, package is approved. You still need to find a sponsor: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group I tried to mail you but the mail got rejected: ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- <sourabhjain.com> (reason: 550 5.1.1 <sourabhjain.com>: Recipient address rejected: User unknown in local recipient table) ----- Transcript of session follows ----- ... while talking to g01zcilapp001.ahe.pok.ibm.com.:  <<< 450 4.1.1 <sourabhjain.com>: Recipient address rejected: User unknown in local recipient table <sourabhjain.com>... Deferred: 450 4.1.1 <sourabhjain.com>: Recipient address rejected: User unknown in local recipient table <<< 554 5.5.1 Error: no valid recipients ... while talking to g03zcilapp004.ahe.boulder.ibm.com.:  <<< 550 5.1.1 <sourabhjain.com>: Recipient address rejected: User unknown in local recipient table 550 5.1.1 <sourabhjain.com>... User unknown <<< 554 5.5.1 Error: no valid recipients repo creation request : https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/26877 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/26878 Note that I will maintain this package until Sourabh gets sponsor. -Vasant Hello Robert-André,
Thanks for your support.
> I tried to mail you but the mail got rejected:
Apologies for the inconvenience, I am facing some issue with my email.
Thanks,
Sourabh Jain
Response to repo creation request:
> repo creation request : https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/26877
The Bugzilla review bug creator didn't match the requester in Pagure.
-Vasant
Sourabh is not in packager group. I will maintain this package for Fedora until he gets into packager group. Looks like I need to open new bugzilla with my ID .. so that I can request to create new repo for fedora. -Vasant FYI. I have created repo and built package buding #1860811. I think we can close this defect. -Vasant |