https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=59405599

i didn't liked this concept years ago, nothing changed :)

as it is publicly available tarball signed with checksums also publicly available, i suggest instead create helper which will download file from cdn.kernel.org, verify it and creates rpm if needed for offline sites.

would be that problem?

(In reply to Jiri Kastner from comment #2)
> i didn't liked this concept years ago, nothing changed :)
> 
> as it is publicly available tarball signed with checksums also publicly
> available, i suggest instead create helper which will download file from
> cdn.kernel.org, verify it and creates rpm if needed for offline sites.
> 
> would be that problem?

While I understand what you are saying, I don't think that would be acceptable.
rteval (which needs a review too - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914739
requires a tested version of the linux kernel for a load and placed in the correct location.

Just think, when you create a packaged version of the linux kernel for fedora, you don't have a script
that is installed and fetches it, the kernel itself is packaged in the rpm.

It is possible that rt-loads could contain other loads in the future as it did in the past,
but currently it only carries the linux kernel and rt-tests has everything else necessary.

The only alternative would be for the rteval package to carry the kernel itself.
The problem there is that the kernel is relatively large. You could have a one or two line
fix to some python code and still require the user to download a new version with the kernel in it.

This way, rteval-loads is already installed and doesn't have to be updated nearly as often
as rteval, so while I do understand your objection, nobody has come up with something better yet.

Followed Jiri's suggestion to move the Requires from the rteval-loads.spec to the rteval.spec
since we are only delivering a load here, and not building it.


* Thu Jan 28 2021 John Kacur <jkacur> - 1.4-12
- Since this package only delivers kernel, moving the spec requires
  for building it to the rteval packages

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=60764576
https://jkacur.fedorapeople.org/rteval-loads-1.4-12.el8.src.rpm
https://jkacur.fedorapeople.org/rteval-loads.spec

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[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.

license of kernel source is known, no objections

[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
     upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
     licenses manually.
see above

[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/share/rteval

this package provides 'payload' for kcompile test, which is default
in rteval.

[-]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/rteval

see above

[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: 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.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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.

see above comment, license is known

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rteval-loads

FEDORA-2021-3d4ad6eeab has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-3d4ad6eeab

FEDORA-2021-b4753b5c80 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-b4753b5c80

FEDORA-2021-3d4ad6eeab has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-3d4ad6eeab \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-3d4ad6eeab

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2021-b4753b5c80 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-b4753b5c80 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-b4753b5c80

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2021-3d4ad6eeab has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2021-b4753b5c80 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.