https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1526091
Alfredo Moralejo <amoralej(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignee|nathaniel.potter(a)intel.com |amoralej(a)redhat.com
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1526091
Alfredo Moralejo <amoralej(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |fedora-review+
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1526091
--- Comment #10 from Alfredo Moralejo <amoralej(a)redhat.com> ---
Official fedora-review:
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- 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.
Note: License file license.png is not marked as %license
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
===== 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "*No copyright* Apache", "Unknown or
generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 41 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/1526091-python-
sushy/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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]: 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 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 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 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
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:
[x]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
Note: Package contains font files
[-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
python2-sushy , python2-sushy-tests , python3-sushy , python3-sushy-
tests , python-sushy-doc
[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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %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: python2-sushy-1.2.0-1.fc28.noarch.rpm
python2-sushy-tests-1.2.0-1.fc28.noarch.rpm
python3-sushy-1.2.0-1.fc28.noarch.rpm
python3-sushy-tests-1.2.0-1.fc28.noarch.rpm
python-sushy-doc-1.2.0-1.fc28.noarch.rpm
python-sushy-1.2.0-1.fc28.src.rpm
python2-sushy.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C Sushy is a Python library
to communicate with Redfish based systems (http://redfish.dmtf.org)
python2-sushy.noarch: W: no-documentation
python2-sushy-tests.noarch: W: no-documentation
python3-sushy.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C Sushy is a Python library
to communicate with Redfish based systems (http://redfish.dmtf.org)
python3-sushy.noarch: W: no-documentation
python3-sushy-tests.noarch: W: no-documentation
python-sushy.src: E: description-line-too-long C Sushy is a Python library to
communicate with Redfish based systems (http://redfish.dmtf.org)
6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 4 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
python-sushy-doc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://launchpad.net/sushy/
<urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
python2-sushy-tests.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://launchpad.net/sushy/
<urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
python2-sushy-tests.noarch: W: no-documentation
python3-sushy-tests.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://launchpad.net/sushy/
<urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
python3-sushy-tests.noarch: W: no-documentation
python2-sushy.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C Sushy is a Python library
to communicate with Redfish based systems (http://redfish.dmtf.org)
python2-sushy.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://launchpad.net/sushy/ <urlopen
error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
python2-sushy.noarch: W: no-documentation
python3-sushy.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C Sushy is a Python library
to communicate with Redfish based systems (http://redfish.dmtf.org)
python3-sushy.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://launchpad.net/sushy/ <urlopen
error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
python3-sushy.noarch: W: no-documentation
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 9 warnings.
Requires
--------
python-sushy-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
python2-sushy-tests (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
python(abi)
python-oslotest
python-testrepository
python-testscenarios
python-testtools
python2-sushy
python3-sushy-tests (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
python(abi)
python3-oslotest
python3-sushy
python3-testrepository
python3-testscenarios
python3-testtools
python2-sushy (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
python(abi)
python-pbr
python-requests
python-six
python3-sushy (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
python(abi)
python3-pbr
python3-requests
python3-six
Provides
--------
python-sushy-doc:
python-sushy-doc
python2-sushy-tests:
python2-sushy-tests
python3-sushy-tests:
python3-sushy-tests
python2-sushy:
python-sushy
python2-sushy
python2.7dist(sushy)
python2dist(sushy)
python3-sushy:
python3-sushy
python3.6dist(sushy)
python3dist(sushy)
Source checksums
----------------
http://tarballs.openstack.org/sushy/sushy-1.2.0.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
bc0e914f5b5bca4184d6f0a85cc43b2ccd09f57cf4624558fd4166c5e6050692
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
bc0e914f5b5bca4184d6f0a85cc43b2ccd09f57cf4624558fd4166c5e6050692
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1526091
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R,
PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Package looks fine, I'm approving it.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1527820
Bug ID: 1527820
Summary: Request: go-hvkvp - Utility to read keyvalue pairs
from the Hyper-V Data Exechange service
Product: Container Development Kit (CDK)
Component: releng
Severity: medium
Assignee: jgregusk(a)redhat.com
Reporter: prkumar(a)redhat.com
QA Contact: optak(a)redhat.com
CC: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org, kanderso(a)redhat.com,
lmohanty(a)redhat.com, me(a)gbraad.nl,
nobody(a)fedoraproject.org,
package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
sgirijan(a)redhat.com, timoran(a)redhat.com,
zebob.m(a)gmail.com
Depends On: 1524245
Docs Contact: rkratky(a)redhat.com
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #1524245 +++
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gbraad/go-hvkvp/master/hvkvp.spec
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/gbraad/go-hvkvp/epel-7-x86_…
Description: Utility to read keyvalue pairs from the Hyper-V Data Exechange
service
This utility is used by Minishift to provide a static IP on startup. This has
been implemented as part of the task:
https://github.com/minishift/minishift/issues/1316 The current package is
unsigned and has been part of an experimental feature, but we now want to move
ahead with a general availability.
Fedora Account System Username: gbraad
--- Additional comment from Robert-André Mauchin on 2017-12-11 19:07:08 EST ---
Hello,
- Not useful:
%if ! 0%{?with_bundled}
export GOPATH=$(pwd):%{gopath}
%else
echo "Unable to build from bundled deps. No Godeps nor vendor directory"
exit 1
%endif
- Remove unused stuff:
# Build with debug info rpm
%global with_debug 1
# Run tests in check section
%global with_check 1
- What are you trying to do here? You make a directory just to remove it on
the next line:
%build
mkdir -p src/%{import_path}
rmdir src/%{import_path}
ln -s ../../../ src/%{import_path
It should look like this:
mkdir -p ./_build/src/%{provider}.%{provider_tld}/%{project}
ln -s $(pwd) ./_build/src/%{provider_prefix}
export GOPATH=$(pwd)/_build:%{gopath}
%gobuild -o bin/%{executable_name} %{import_path}/cmd/%{executable_name}
- Not needed even for EL6/7:
# handle license on el{6,7}: global must be defined after the License field
above
%{!?_licensedir: %global license %doc}
- Changelog info is not coherent with the header. It should just be:
* Mon Dec 11 2017 Gerard Braad <me(a)gbraad.nl> 0.4-0.2
- Use a more meaningful name for your archive, with:
Source0:
https://%{provider_prefix}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1524245
[Bug 1524245] Review Request: go-hvkvp - Utility to read keyvalue pairs
from the Hyper-V Data Exechange service
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1524245
Praveen Kumar <prkumar(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blocks| |1527820
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1527820
[Bug 1527820] Request: go-hvkvp - Utility to read keyvalue pairs from the
Hyper-V Data Exechange service
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036130
Pavel Raiskup <praiskup(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|POST |ON_QA
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036130
Pavel Raiskup <praiskup(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|MODIFIED |POST
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509386
Bug ID: 1509386
Summary: Review Request: polarsys-b612-fonts - A typeface
designed for reading comfort and safety in aeroplane
cockpits
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: mavit(a)mavit.org.uk
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL:
https://pagure.io/polarsys-b612-fonts/raw/master/f/polarsys-b612-fonts.spec
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mavit/polarsys-b612-fonts/f…
Description: Commissioned by Airbus and designed by Intactile Design, B612 is a
digital font intended to be used in an aeronautical context. B612 is built with
legibility as it’s core: every character is designed to be highly recognizable
even in critical reading conditions. B612 drawing has been optimized for screen
display, and full hinting has been added to all sizes of alpha numeric
characters.
Fedora Account System Username: mavit
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component