[Bug 1382989] Review Request: mirrormanager2 - Mirror management application

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382989

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-10-31 03:34:53



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
mirrormanager2-0.7.3-4.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1382989] Review Request: mirrormanager2 - Mirror management application

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382989



--- Comment #12 from Patrick Uiterwijk  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/mirrormanager2

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1382989] Review Request: mirrormanager2 - Mirror management application

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382989

Kevin Fenzi  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #11 from Kevin Fenzi  ---
Thanks. The only issue I see left is that you should likely move the license
files to the -filesystem subpackge. That way they always get installed no
matter what subset of the packages you install. ;) 

If you could fix that before import that would be great. 

This package is APPROVED.

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1382989] Review Request: mirrormanager2 - Mirror management application

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382989



--- Comment #10 from Patrick Uiterwijk  ---
Regarding client, crawler or list needing -lib: no.
-lib is only for things that directly communicate with the database, meaning
the backend and the frontend.

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1382989] Review Request: mirrormanager2 - Mirror management application

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382989



--- Comment #9 from Patrick Uiterwijk  ---
Fixed your remarks.

new Spec URL: https://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org/mirrormanager2.spec
new SRPM URL:
https://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org/mirrormanager2-0.7.3-3.fc26.src.rpm

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1382989] Review Request: mirrormanager2 - Mirror management application

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382989



--- Comment #8 from Kevin Fenzi  ---
Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines

ignore, it's because python-admin-flask wasn't back in at the time of review.

- Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros

Pick the one you prefer? :) 

- 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 COPYING is not marked as %license
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text

Mark COPYING as %license

- Note: No known owner of /usr/share/mirrormanager2
  Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/httpd, /etc/logrotate.d,
 /etc/httpd/conf.d, /usr/share/mirrormanager2, /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
 packages/mirrormanager2, /usr/lib/tmpfiles.d

Fix ownership

[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /etc/mirrormanager-client
 (mirrormanager-client), /etc/mirrormanager(mirrormanager),
 /var/log/mirrormanager/crawler(mirrormanager),
 /var/lock/mirrormanager(mirrormanager),
 /var/lib/mirrormanager(mirrormanager),
 /var/run/mirrormanager(mirrormanager),
 /var/log/mirrormanager(mirrormanager)

We need to remember to retire mirrormanager.

- [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
 mirrormanager2-lib , mirrormanager2-mirrorlist ,
 mirrormanager2-crawler , mirrormanager2-backend ,
 mirrormanager2-client , mirrormanager2-statistics

Should mirrorlist/crawler/client at least require lib?

- Theres a number of rpmlint issues, might be nice to clean some up.
Nothing particularly blocking in there however.

= 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2)", "Unknown or
 generated". 304 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in
 /home/fedora/kevin/1382989-mirrormanager2/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/share/mirrormanager2
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/httpd, /etc/logrotate.d,
 /etc/httpd/conf.d, /usr/share/mirrormanager2, /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
 packages/mirrormanager2, /usr/lib/tmpfiles.d
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /etc/mirrormanager-client
 (mirrormanager-client), /etc/mirrormanager(mirrormanager),
 /var/log/mirrormanager/crawler(mirrormanager),
 /var/lock/mirrormanager(mirrormanager),
 /var/lib/mirrormanager(mirrormanager),
 /var/run/mirrormanager(mirrormanager),
 /var/log/mirrormanager(mirrormanager)
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 307200 bytes in 15 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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint 

[Bug 1382989] Review Request: mirrormanager2 - Mirror management application

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382989



--- Comment #7 from Patrick Uiterwijk  ---
URL and source updated

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1382989] Review Request: mirrormanager2 - Mirror management application

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382989



--- Comment #6 from Neal Gompa  ---
The URL and Source0 are wrong for this package.

From what I can tell, this would be valid for this package:

URL: https://github.com/fedora-infra/mirrormanager2
Source0: %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

Please fix to valid paths where the sources can be retrieved.

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1382989] Review Request: mirrormanager2 - Mirror management application

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382989



--- Comment #5 from Patrick Uiterwijk  ---
Fixed those remarks except for %{buildroot} vs $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, as that's
personal preference.

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1382989] Review Request: mirrormanager2 - Mirror management application

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382989

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ngomp...@gmail.com



--- Comment #4 from Neal Gompa  ---
Some notes:

* The conditional on the python-sqlalchemy BuildRequires and Requires is
redundant, as "0%{?rhel} == 6" implies both the variable's existence and the
value must be "6". I suggest simplifying it to "%if 0%{?rhel} == 6".

* The %python_sitelib macro definition is unnecessary and can be stripped.

* Add "python-srpm-macros" and "python2-rpm-macros" as BuildRequires (for
%{?rhel} builds only) so you can use the standard Fedora %py2_build,
%py2_install, and %python2_sitelib macros. That brings it more in-line with
current packaging practices. These macros are available for EL6+ through these
packages. Fedora pulls them in through the python{2,3}-devel subpackage
automatically.

* Remove the "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" command in %install, as it's not needed.

* Using "%{buildroot}" is preferred over "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT".

* If you're going to "Requires: %{name}-lib" be constrained by the same
version, you might as well tighten it to %{version}-%{release}, to prevent
issues when patches might affect that part. Also, using "==" there is
misleading, as it's not a comparison, but an assignment. Use "=".

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1382989] Review Request: mirrormanager2 - Mirror management application

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382989



--- Comment #3 from Patrick Uiterwijk  ---
Updated spec and srpm by just replacing systemd-devel with systemd.
Rawhide scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16019711

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1382989] Review Request: mirrormanager2 - Mirror management application

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382989



--- Comment #2 from Kevin Fenzi  ---
For newer Fedora your BuildRequires: systemd-devel doesn't work... it should
just be 'systemd' there. Can you adjust the spec for that? For some reason koji
seems to pull it in, but local mock here doesn't.

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1382989] Review Request: mirrormanager2 - Mirror management application

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382989

Kevin Fenzi  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||ke...@scrye.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ke...@scrye.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Kevin Fenzi  ---
I'll review this. Look for a full review soon...

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org