https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936188
Bug ID: 1936188 Summary: Review Request: libdnf-plugin-txnupd - Plugin for libdnf to implement transactional updates Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ngompa13@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ngompa/transactional-upda... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ngompa/transactional-upda...
Description: This package contains the plugin to implement transactional updates as a libdnf plugin. This plugin hooks into the DNF "context" for Micro DNF and PackageKit to enable this functionality in normal use.
Fedora Account System Username: ngompa
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936188
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |1922869 Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922869 [Bug 1922869] Review Request: transactional-update - Transactional Updates with btrfs and snapshots
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936188
Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dcavalca@fb.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |dcavalca@fb.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com --- Taking this review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936188
--- Comment #2 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com --- - drop the Source0 comment or escape the macro to avoid: warning: Macro expanded in comment on line 15: %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz - build fails on rawhide with: No matching package to install: 'pkgconfig(tukit) >= 3.1.2'
Looks like tukit was approved in #1922869 but it hasn't propagated yet. Grabbed the rpms and running fedora-review -L to pull them in as well.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936188
--- Comment #3 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/a/1936188-libdnf-plugin-txnupd/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 must own all directories that it creates. [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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: libdnf-plugin-txnupd-0.1.2-0.fc35.1.x86_64.rpm libdnf-plugin-txnupd-debuginfo-0.1.2-0.fc35.1.x86_64.rpm libdnf-plugin-txnupd-debugsource-0.1.2-0.fc35.1.x86_64.rpm libdnf-plugin-txnupd-0.1.2-0.fc35.1.src.rpm libdnf-plugin-txnupd.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) transactional -> transaction, transnational, transitional libdnf-plugin-txnupd.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C libdnf plugin to implement transactional updates libdnf-plugin-txnupd.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US transactional -> transaction, transnational, transitional libdnf-plugin-txnupd.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/dnf/protected.d/txnupd.conf libdnf-plugin-txnupd.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) transactional -> transaction, transnational, transitional libdnf-plugin-txnupd.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C libdnf plugin to implement transactional updates libdnf-plugin-txnupd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US transactional -> transaction, transnational, transitional libdnf-plugin-txnupd.src:15: W: macro-in-comment %{url} libdnf-plugin-txnupd.src:15: W: macro-in-comment %{version} libdnf-plugin-txnupd.src:15: W: macro-in-comment %{name} libdnf-plugin-txnupd.src:15: W: macro-in-comment %{version} libdnf-plugin-txnupd.src: E: specfile-error warning: Macro expanded in comment on line 15: %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 11 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libdnf-plugin-txnupd-debuginfo-0.1.2-0.fc35.1.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- libdnf-plugin-txnupd.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) transactional -> transaction, transnational, transitional libdnf-plugin-txnupd.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C libdnf plugin to implement transactional updates libdnf-plugin-txnupd.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US transactional -> transaction, transnational, transitional libdnf-plugin-txnupd.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/dnf/protected.d/txnupd.conf 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Unversioned so-files -------------------- libdnf-plugin-txnupd: /usr/lib64/libdnf/plugins/txnupd.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://pagure.io/libdnf-plugin-txnupd/archive/0.1.2/libdnf-plugin-txnupd-0.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2622194c7aadc4279c5b3f67ebe1c58ac144c8e124c7b7e958abfaaa1ebdd241 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2622194c7aadc4279c5b3f67ebe1c58ac144c8e124c7b7e958abfaaa1ebdd241
Requires -------- libdnf-plugin-txnupd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dnf-data dracut-transactional-update libc.so.6()(64bit) libdnf(x86-64) libdnf.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libtukit.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) tukit-libs(x86-64)
libdnf-plugin-txnupd-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libdnf-plugin-txnupd-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- libdnf-plugin-txnupd: libdnf-plugin-txnupd libdnf-plugin-txnupd(x86-64)
libdnf-plugin-txnupd-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libdnf-plugin-txnupd-debuginfo libdnf-plugin-txnupd-debuginfo(x86-64)
libdnf-plugin-txnupd-debugsource: libdnf-plugin-txnupd-debugsource libdnf-plugin-txnupd-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -L /tmp/tukit/ -b 1936188 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, R, Perl, fonts, Python, Haskell, PHP, Java, SugarActivity, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Built with local dependencies: /tmp/tukit/dracut-transactional-update-3.2.0-2.fc35.noarch.rpm /tmp/tukit/libtukit-3.2.0-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm /tmp/tukit/transactional-update-debuginfo-3.2.0-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm /tmp/tukit/tukit-debuginfo-3.2.0-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm /tmp/tukit/tukit-3.2.0-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm /tmp/tukit/tukit-devel-3.2.0-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm /tmp/tukit/libtukit-debuginfo-3.2.0-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936188
Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com --- The only actual thing to fix that I can see is the macro in comment, the other rpmlint warnings don't look terribly relevant here. APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936188
--- Comment #5 from Tomas Hrcka thrcka@redhat.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libdnf-plugin-txnupd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936188
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2021-06-13 22:11:30
--- Comment #6 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- This is built in Rawhide.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936188 Bug 1936188 depends on bug 1922869, which changed state.
Bug 1922869 Summary: Review Request: transactional-update - Transactional Updates with btrfs and snapshots https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922869
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org