[Bug 1590425] Review Request: kata-runtime - Kata runtime
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1590425
Cole Robinson <crobinso(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |crobinso(a)redhat.com
Flags| |needinfo?(dinechin(a)redhat.c
| |om)
--- Comment #10 from Cole Robinson <crobinso(a)redhat.com> ---
Using the SRPM URL: and Spec URL: format in Comment #3 helps simplify the
review process, fedora-review tool can just be pointed at the bug. So for next
posting please provide that as well
* The kata-runtime binary should be in /usr/bin, which is where upstream puts
it. I don't see any reason to deviate
* godocs/golicense/files: only a single LICENSE file ends up in the rpm. I
don't think the godocs/golicense stuff is
playing well with the %files section, but I'm not sure. either way, I don't
think we need to put anything more
than the top level LICENSE and README.md into the RPM. The LICENSEs are all
the same apache version, and most of
of the other docs seem fine to just exist in upstream git.
* The BuildRequires: compiler(go-compiler) is not required, go-rpm-macros
does that for us
* The comment about a 'rediculous' name from goname is not necessary. IMO it's
self evident why
goname does not apply here, it doesn't need the commentary
Trimmed fedora-review output below, with some comments.
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/defaults
* Yes, seems like this should be a %dir in the %files list. This is
a non-standard FHS directory I believe, but it will take work with
kata upstream to correct it, so it should stay for now IMO>
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
* We talked about this offline. Use of %gobuild is not easy in this
package because 'make' handles a bunch of other stuff. So distro
go build flags aren't making it into the build. Next release
of go-rpm-macros should have a %gobuildflags macro that will help
here, but it isn't available yet. Christophe, please add a comment
to that effect in the spec, so we don't forget, and optionally
link to the go-rpm-macros commit:
https://pagure.io/go-rpm-macros/c/67b4fbbbfce0986ac46cd1329bf85a18ea7a43d...
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
* ExcludeArch is necessary as dependent kata components do not build on
32 bit archs. This is a known issue that isn't kata-runtimes fault.
Doesn't block this review
[!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
* worked fine for me
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
* indeed, spec should use %make_build and %make_install macros in place of the
direct
'make' calls. But if this causes build issues, just drop them and mention it
in
the next submission
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: kata-runtime-1.8.2-2.fc32.x86_64.rpm
kata-runtime-debuginfo-1.8.2-2.fc32.x86_64.rpm
kata-runtime-debugsource-1.8.2-2.fc32.x86_64.rpm
kata-runtime-1.8.2-2.fc32.src.rpm
kata-runtime.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kata-collect-data.sh
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
* This issue can be safely ignored. I think we may not want to ship this
script, or move it elsewhere, but we can figure it out after package import
--
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
4 years, 6 months