[Bug 1838027] Review Request: zuul - Trunk Gating System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838027 Petr Viktorin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED CC||pvikt...@redhat.com Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2020-08-19 12:09:45 -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1838027] Review Request: zuul - Trunk Gating System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838027 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #28 from Miro Hrončok --- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1838027] Review Request: zuul - Trunk Gating System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838027
--- Comment #27 from Fabien Boucher ---
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #25)
> Other than that:
>
> Package Review
> ==
>
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
>
>
> Issues:
>
> 1) Some of the packages put files into /usr/lib/systemd/system but they don't
>co-own the directories nor do they require systemd. You need to do one of
> the things.
Done. Added systemd as Require for required subpackages.
> 2) zuul.noarch: W: no-documentation
>Consider adding %doc README.rst to the main package.
>
Done
>
> = 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: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright*
> Apache License 2.0 GPL (v3.0)", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0",
> "Expat License", "GPL (v3 or later)". 1651 files have unknown license.
> [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
> [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/systemd,
> /usr/lib/systemd/system
> [-]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
> It bundles ansibles, but there is marked.
> [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.
> [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
> [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
> [?]: 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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
> [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]: No %config files under /usr.
> [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]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
> packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
> versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
> use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
> [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
> [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in
[Bug 1838027] Review Request: zuul - Trunk Gating System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838027 --- Comment #26 from Fabien Boucher --- (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #24) > > I wasn't able to provide multiple Provides: bundled(ansible) = . > > Wasn't able? rpmlint will bother you, but is should work: > > > Provides: ansible = 1 > Provides: ansible = 2 > Provides: ansible = 3 > > $ rpm -qp --provides ../RPMS/noarch/reproducer-doubleprovide-0-0.noarch.rpm > ansible = 1 > ansible = 2 > ansible = 3 > reproducer-doubleprovide = 0-0 Yes it was just a rpmlint error. So in the new spec version: Provides: bundled(ansible) = 2.9 Provides: bundled(ansible) = 2.8 Provides: bundled(ansible) = 2.7 and I skip the error in the zuu.rpmlintrc https://fbo.fedorapeople.org/zuul/zuul.rpmlintrc -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1838027] Review Request: zuul - Trunk Gating System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838027
--- Comment #25 from Miro Hrončok ---
Other than that:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
1) Some of the packages put files into /usr/lib/systemd/system but they don't
co-own the directories nor do they require systemd. You need to do one of
the things.
2) zuul.noarch: W: no-documentation
Consider adding %doc README.rst to the main package.
= 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: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright*
Apache License 2.0 GPL (v3.0)", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0",
"Expat License", "GPL (v3 or later)". 1651 files have unknown license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/systemd,
/usr/lib/systemd/system
[-]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
It bundles ansibles, but there is marked.
[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.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[?]: 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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: 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
[Bug 1838027] Review Request: zuul - Trunk Gating System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838027 --- Comment #24 from Miro Hrončok --- > I wasn't able to provide multiple Provides: bundled(ansible) = . Wasn't able? rpmlint will bother you, but is should work: Provides: ansible = 1 Provides: ansible = 2 Provides: ansible = 3 $ rpm -qp --provides ../RPMS/noarch/reproducer-doubleprovide-0-0.noarch.rpm ansible = 1 ansible = 2 ansible = 3 reproducer-doubleprovide = 0-0 -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1838027] Review Request: zuul - Trunk Gating System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838027 --- Comment #23 from Fabien Boucher --- Spec: https://fbo.fedorapeople.org/zuul/zuul.spec SRPM: https://fbo.fedorapeople.org/zuul/zuul-3.19.1-1.fc34.src.rpm https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=49153119 I wasn't able to provide multiple Provides: bundled(ansible) = . I guess this related to your explanation here https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpmlint/issues/427 So I've updated the spec, the functional tests passed https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/zuul/pull-request/2#comment-53457 -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1838027] Review Request: zuul - Trunk Gating System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838027
--- Comment #22 from Miro Hrončok ---
Yes please!
The Fedora's ansible package is licensed as GPLv3+ and licensecheck suggest the
same, so the correct tag is (NB the lower case "and" and the plus at the end):
# The entire source code is ASL 2.0 except files under
%%{python3_sitelib}/zuul/ansible which is GPLv3+
License: ASL 2.0 and GPLv3+
Adding the bundled provides makes sense for the security response team. You
might get some ansible CVEs open for zuul and would need to check the impact on
zuul.
--
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
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1838027] Review Request: zuul - Trunk Gating System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838027 --- Comment #21 from Fabien Boucher --- Some Ansible modules have been modified to fit some security requirements of Zuul. So yes this is intentional and part of the upstream Zuul project. Should I set ?: # The entire source code is ASL 2.0 except files under /usr/lib/pythonX.X/site-packages/zuul/ansible which is GPLv3 License: ASL 2.0 And GPLv3 The provided Ansible files are modified by the Zuul maintainers. Thus I'm wondering if it makes sense to include this information according to the explanation here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bundled_Libraries?rd=Packaging:Bundled_Libraries#Requirement_if_you_bundle "This allows us to search for packages that may be affected by bugs or security issues in older versions of the library" Provides: bundled(ansible) = 2.7 Provides: bundled(ansible) = 2.8 Provides: bundled(ansible) = 2.9 Let me know. Thanks again for the help ! -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1838027] Review Request: zuul - Trunk Gating System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838027 --- Comment #20 from Miro Hrončok --- This package seem to bundle ansible: $ rpm -ql *.noarch.rpm | grep ansible /usr/share/doc/zuul-doc/html/_sources/reference/developer/ansible.rst.txt /usr/share/doc/zuul-doc/html/reference/developer/ansible.html /usr/bin/zuul-manage-ansible /var/lib/zuul/ansible /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/2.7 /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/2.7/__pycache__ /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/2.7/__pycache__/logconfig.cpython-39.opt-1.pyc ... /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/2.7/lookup/url.py /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/2.7/paths.py /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/2.8 /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/2.8/__pycache__ /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/2.8/__pycache__/logconfig.cpython-39.opt-1.pyc /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/2.8/__pycache__/logconfig.cpython-39.pyc /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/2.8/__pycache__/paths.cpython-39.opt-1.pyc /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/2.8/__pycache__/paths.cpython-39.pyc /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/2.8/action /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/2.8/action/__init__.py /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/2.8/action/__pycache__ ... /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/2.8/lookup/template.py /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/2.8/lookup/url.py /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/2.8/paths.py /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/2.9 /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/2.9/__pycache__ /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/2.9/__pycache__/logconfig.cpython-39.opt-1.pyc /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/2.9/__pycache__/logconfig.cpython-39.pyc /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/2.9/__pycache__/paths.cpython-39.opt-1.pyc /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/2.9/__pycache__/paths.cpython-39.pyc /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/2.9/action /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/2.9/action/__init__.py /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/2.9/action/__pycache__ ... /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/2.9/lookup/shelvefile.py /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/2.9/lookup/template.py /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/2.9/lookup/url.py /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/2.9/paths.py /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/__init__.py /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/__pycache__ /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-39.opt-1.pyc /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-39.pyc /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/__pycache__/logconfig.cpython-39.opt-1.pyc /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/__pycache__/logconfig.cpython-39.pyc /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/__pycache__/paths.cpython-39.opt-1.pyc /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/__pycache__/paths.cpython-39.pyc /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/base /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/base/__init__.py /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/base/__pycache__ /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/base/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-39.opt-1.pyc /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/base/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-39.pyc /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/base/action ... /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/base/lookup/shelvefile.py /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/base/lookup/template.py /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/base/lookup/url.py /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/logconfig.py /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/paths.py /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/cmd/__pycache__/manage_ansible.cpython-39.opt-1.pyc /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/cmd/__pycache__/manage_ansible.cpython-39.pyc /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/cmd/manage_ansible.py /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/lib/__pycache__/ansible.cpython-39.opt-1.pyc /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/lib/__pycache__/ansible.cpython-39.pyc /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/lib/ansible-config.conf /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/lib/ansible.py /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/sphinx/__pycache__/ansible.cpython-39.opt-1.pyc /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/sphinx/__pycache__/ansible.cpython-39.pyc /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/sphinx/ansible.py /var/lib/zuul/ansible Is this intentional? if so, the license of the package is incorrect (ansible is GPL v3 or later) and the bundled() provides are missing. -- 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 --
[Bug 1838027] Review Request: zuul - Trunk Gating System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838027 --- Comment #19 from Miro Hrončok --- A proper review after the recent changes. I can have a look, but I'm done for today, so not assigning myself in case somebody beats me to 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1838027] Review Request: zuul - Trunk Gating System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838027 --- Comment #18 from Fabien Boucher --- Both blokers have been resolved. Here is a scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=48746884 In the distgit I provide a functional test that fully setup Zuul then configure a periodic job and verify that the Zuul job succeed. Here is the result of the rpm-test job: https://fedora.softwarefactory-project.io/zuul/build/57e465a6a5ad40b696d80390c9e76336 Please let me know if you see any other blockers ? And if something is preventing that package to land in Fedora ? -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1838027] Review Request: zuul - Trunk Gating System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838027 Bug 1838027 depends on bug 1856000, which changed state. Bug 1856000 Summary: python-kazoo-2.8.0 is available https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856000 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1838027] Review Request: zuul - Trunk Gating System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838027 Bug 1838027 depends on bug 1801001, which changed state. Bug 1801001 Summary: python-cheroot-8.4.2 is available https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801001 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1838027] Review Request: zuul - Trunk Gating System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838027 --- Comment #17 from Fabien Boucher --- So two runtime deps are blocking atm: Depsolve Error occured: Problem: package zuul-fingergw-3.19.1-1.fc33.noarch requires zuul = 3.19.1-1.fc33, but none of the providers can be installed - conflicting requests - nothing provides ((python3.9dist(cheroot) < 8.1 or python3.9dist(cheroot) > 8.2) with (python3.9dist(cheroot) < 8.2 or python3.9dist(cheroot) > 8.3) with (python3.9dist(cheroot) < 8.3 or python3.9dist(cheroot) > 8.3)) needed by zuul-3.19.1-1.fc33.noarch - nothing provides python3.9dist(kazoo) >= 2.8 needed by zuul-3.19.1-1.fc33.noarch I've proposed PR on both packages (python-cheroot, python-kazoo). -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1838027] Review Request: zuul - Trunk Gating System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838027 --- Comment #16 from Fabien Boucher --- (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #15) > > Should I run sed in the spec to remove the shebang for those files or the > > rpmlintrc file exception is enough... > > Honestly, it is just a comment, so I'd say go with rpmlintrc. Thanks ok. -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1838027] Review Request: zuul - Trunk Gating System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838027 Fabien Boucher changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1856000 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856000 [Bug 1856000] python-kazoo-2.8.0 is available -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1838027] Review Request: zuul - Trunk Gating System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838027 Fabien Boucher changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1801001 --- Comment #15 from Miro Hrončok --- > Should I run sed in the spec to remove the shebang for those files or the > rpmlintrc file exception is enough... Honestly, it is just a comment, so I'd say go with rpmlintrc. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801001 [Bug 1801001] python-cheroot-8.4.1 is available -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1838027] Review Request: zuul - Trunk Gating System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838027 --- Comment #14 from Fabien Boucher --- - I've updated the spec to bump to last release 3.19.1 > zuul.noarch: E: non-executable-script > /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/base/library/command.py 644 > /usr/bin/python3 > zuul.noarch: E: non-executable-script > /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/base/library/zuul_console.py > 644 /usr/bin/python3 Upstream is not keen on accepting my patch. Should I run sed in the spec to remove the shebang for those files or the rpmlintrc file exception is enough ? (https://fbo.fedorapeople.org/zuul/zuul.rpmlintrc) https://review.opendev.org/#/c/728955/ Spec URL: https://fbo.fedorapeople.org/zuul/zuul.spec SRPM URL: https://fbo.fedorapeople.org/zuul/zuul-3.19.1-1.fc33.src.rpm Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=47919475 -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1838027] Review Request: zuul - Trunk Gating System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838027
--- Comment #13 from Fabien Boucher ---
Hi Robert-André, thanks for the review.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #12)
> - Remove shebangs for
>
> zuul.noarch: E: non-executable-script
> /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/base/library/command.py 644
> /usr/bin/python3
> zuul.noarch: E: non-executable-script
> /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/base/library/zuul_console.py
> 644 /usr/bin/python3
For this one I have an upstream patch that does not pass the upstream CI
https://review.opendev.org/728955/ . It seems that removing the shebang create
unexpected issues ... So I need to dig more into that weird issue if that's a
packaging blocker.
> - Add a logrotate file for your log See
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
> #_logrotate_config_file
This is a point where a I have a doubt. The Python logging file provided by the
package ensures the rotation https://fbo.fedorapeople.org/zuul/logging.conf.
Should I remove the use of 'TimedRotatingFileHandler' and move on logrotate ?
> - Own this dir:
>
> [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
> Note: No known owner of /etc/zuul
>
This should be fixed: the "%dir %attr(0755,zuul,zuul) %{_sysconfdir}/zuul" was
missing.
>
>
> Package Review
> ==
>
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> [ ] = Manual review needed
>
>
> Issues:
> ===
> - Package installs properly.
> Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
> See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
>
> = 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: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright*
> Apache License 2.0 GPL (v3.0)", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0",
> "Expat License", "GPL (v3 or later)". 1645 files have unknown license.
> Detailed output of licensecheck in
> /home/bob/packaging/review/zuul/review-zuul/licensecheck.txt
> [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
> [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
> Note: No known owner of /etc/zuul
> [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.
> [x]: 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]: 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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
> [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]: No %config files under /usr.
> [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]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and
> systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd
[Bug 1838027] Review Request: zuul - Trunk Gating System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838027
--- Comment #12 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Remove shebangs for
zuul.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/base/library/command.py 644
/usr/bin/python3
zuul.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/base/library/zuul_console.py 644
/usr/bin/python3
- Add a logrotate file for your log See
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_logrotate_config_file
- Own this dir:
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /etc/zuul
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
= 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: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright*
Apache License 2.0 GPL (v3.0)", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0",
"Expat License", "GPL (v3 or later)". 1645 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/zuul/review-zuul/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /etc/zuul
[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.
[x]: 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]: 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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and
systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files.
Note: Systemd service file(s) in zuul-scheduler, zuul-merger, zuul-
web, zuul-executor, zuul-fingergw
[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]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned
[Bug 1838027] Review Request: zuul - Trunk Gating System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838027 --- Comment #11 from Fabien Boucher --- Hello, thanks to the work of Sviatoslav to land the cheroot's patch, I was able to land a fix upstream to remove the cheroot pinning (https://review.opendev.org/740717). Then I've updated the spec file. Spec URL: https://fbo.fedorapeople.org/zuul/zuul.spec SRPM URL: https://fbo.fedorapeople.org/zuul/zuul-3.19.0-1.fc33.src.rpm Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=47247540 And update of cheroot rpm is needed: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-cheroot/pull-request/2 -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1838027] Review Request: zuul - Trunk Gating System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838027 Bug 1838027 depends on bug 1742034, which changed state. Bug 1742034 Summary: python-virtualenv-20.0.23 is available https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1742034 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1838027] Review Request: zuul - Trunk Gating System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838027 Sviatoslav Sydorenko changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(ssydoren@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #10 from Sviatoslav Sydorenko --- Hey Miro, that regression bug is blocked on the contributor who initially implemented the connection management refactoring. And the current maintainers (jaraco and me) don't fully understand how to fix that. So we're waiting on the author (the-allanc) to complete his investigation. I know that jaraco is considering reverting that refactoring altogether if things won't move forward. I guess you could package old pinned version for now. I myself tried to debug it a couple of times but no success so far. I'm as annoyed with that bug as you are but I'm currently powerless when it comes to fixing it. I welcome any attempts to help fix it in Cheroot, of course :) -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1838027] Review Request: zuul - Trunk Gating System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838027 --- Comment #9 from Neal Gompa --- (In reply to Fabien Boucher from comment #6) > > -> This is more problematic because the upstream has pinned cherrypy and > cheroot to a known working version for them. > The referenced issue is about scaling > https://github.com/cherrypy/cheroot/issues/263 and the proposed patch is not > ready https://github.com/cherrypy/cheroot/pull/277. > > It seems the cheroot issue leads to connection resets under a quite heavy > load on the Zuul API (zuul-web). > The reproducer (that I've run) shows that on the current rawhide, cheroot > has that issue. > > What are the options here ? > - Bypass the pinning because it does not prevent the services to run ? > - Do a library bundle (for cheroot and cherrypy), is it authorized, feasible > ? > - Wait for the fix to land ? My suggestion would be to patch out the pinning and backport the fix to the cherrypy packages in Fedora. It's not actually *critical* for Zuul to function, and the patch would be useful for *all* users of CherryPy (including, for example, Ipsilon). -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1838027] Review Request: zuul - Trunk Gating System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838027 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ssydo...@redhat.com Depends On||1742034 Flags||needinfo?(ssydoren@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #8 from Miro Hrončok --- Sviatoslav, can you please help with the cheroot fix? Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1742034 [Bug 1742034] python-virtualenv-20.0.21 is available -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1838027] Review Request: zuul - Trunk Gating System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838027 --- Comment #7 from Miro Hrončok --- > Wait for the fix to land ? Make the fix, backport it if needed? -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1838027] Review Request: zuul - Trunk Gating System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838027
--- Comment #6 from Fabien Boucher ---
Spec URL: https://fbo.fedorapeople.org/zuul/zuul.spec
SRPM URL: https://fbo.fedorapeople.org/zuul/zuul-3.19.0-1.fc33.src.rpm
3.19.0 has just been released. I'm using it.
Now I keep the requirements.txt and let the runtime deps to be discovered with
it.
But this actually makes the package installation not possible due to:
- nothing provides ((python3.8dist(virtualenv) < 20 or
python3.8dist(virtualenv) > 20) with (python3.8dist(virtualenv) < 20.0.1 or
python3.8dist(virtualenv) > 20.0.1) with python3.8dist(virtualenv) > 20) needed
by zuul-3.19.0-1.fc33.noarch
-> This should be fixed soon when
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-virtualenv/pull-request/20 merge.
- nothing provides python3.8dist(cheroot) < 8.1 needed by
zuul-3.19.0-1.fc33.noarch
- nothing provides python3.8dist(cherrypy) = 18.3 needed by
zuul-3.19.0-1.fc33.noarch
-> This is more problematic because the upstream has pinned cherrypy and
cheroot to a known working version for them.
The referenced issue is about scaling
https://github.com/cherrypy/cheroot/issues/263 and the proposed patch is not
ready https://github.com/cherrypy/cheroot/pull/277.
It seems the cheroot issue leads to connection resets under a quite heavy load
on the Zuul API (zuul-web).
The reproducer (that I've run) shows that on the current rawhide, cheroot has
that issue.
What are the options here ?
- Bypass the pinning because it does not prevent the services to run ?
- Do a library bundle (for cheroot and cherrypy), is it authorized, feasible ?
- Wait for the fix to land ?
Also regarding the others points you reported:
- pathfix.py use %{python3}: done
- zuul-webui has no dependency on zuul: yes we only distribute the UI source,
that will need to build by the operator with npm (will be explained in the
readme)
- LICENSE should be marked as %license: done and added LICENSE to all
subpackages
- rpmlint I've added a zuul.rpmlintrc
https://fbo.fedorapeople.org/zuul/zuul.rpmlintrc with my explanations
Thanks in advance for your help
--
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
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1838027] Review Request: zuul - Trunk Gating System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838027 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1218410 --- Comment #5 from Miro Hrončok --- *** Bug 1220451 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218410 [Bug 1218410] Review Request: python-APSscheduler - In-process task scheduler with Cron-like capabilities -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1838027] Review Request: zuul - Trunk Gating System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838027
--- Comment #4 from Miro Hrončok ---
8)
%files doc
%doc build/html LICENSE README.fedora
LICENSE should be marked as %license, not %doc.
Other (sub)packages don't have LICENSE packaged at all.
9) rpmlint screams with problems. I've picked some I don't understand, are they
expected?
zuul.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /etc/zuul/zuul.conf zuul
zuul.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/zuul/zuul.conf 640
zuul.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /usr/lib64/zuul zuul
zuul.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /usr/lib64/zuul zuul
zuul.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/zuul zuul
zuul.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/zuul zuul
zuul.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/zuul/.ssh zuul
zuul.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/zuul/.ssh zuul
zuul.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/zuul/ansible zuul
zuul.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/zuul/ansible zuul
zuul.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/zuul/keys zuul
zuul.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/zuul/keys zuul
zuul.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/log/zuul zuul
zuul.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/log/zuul zuul
zuul-executor.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/zuul/ansible zuul
zuul-executor.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/zuul/ansible zuul
zuul-executor.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/zuul/executor zuul
zuul-executor.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/zuul/executor zuul
And some that should probably be fixed:
zuul.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/zuul/ansible/base/library/command.py 644
/usr/bin/python3
zuul.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/zuul/ansible/base/library/zuul_console.py 644
/usr/bin/python3
zuul.noarch: W: log-files-without-logrotate ['/var/log/zuul']
zuul-scheduler.noarch: W: empty-%postun
zuul-merger.noarch: W: empty-%postun
zuul-web.noarch: W: empty-%postun
zuul-executor.noarch: W: empty-%postun
zuul-fingergw.noarch: W: empty-%postun
zuul-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/zuul-doc/LICENSE
Those can (and should) be deleted:
zuul-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/zuul-doc/html/.buildinfo
zuul-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/zuul-doc/html/.doctrees
zuul.src:307: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package) %dir %attr(0755,
zuul, zuul) %{_libdir}/zuul
This is a warning, but will actually break things if built on 64bit builder but
installed on 32bit system, %{_libdir} is /usr/lib64 on 64bits. Either the
package needs to be arched, or this needs to be hardcoded to %{_prefix}/lib.
--
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
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1838027] Review Request: zuul - Trunk Gating System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838027
--- Comment #3 from Miro Hrončok ---
> Done, but I was unable to use the macro neither to find it.
The macro is in python3-rpm-macros since yesterday:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-rpm-macros/pull-request/58 -- going
with a direct pathfix.py call is OK (unless you feel very leading edge).
> /usr/bin/pathfix.py -i /usr/bin/python3 -p -n -k zuul/ansible
Could you please use %{python3} over hardcoded /usr/bin/python3?
BTW zuul-webui has no dependency on zuul, that is intentional? I haven't
checked the Fedora README yet.
I'll run fedora-review now.
--
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
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1838027] Review Request: zuul - Trunk Gating System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838027
--- Comment #2 from Fabien Boucher ---
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #1)
> spec sanity:
>
>
> 1) %global srcname zuul -> consider dropping this, I don't see it used
> anywhere in the spec
done
>
> 2) 0001-Remove-another-shebang-and-remove-useless-exec-bits.patch -> is the
> mode thing supported by regular patch, or is %autosetup -S git needed for
> this?
Looking the buildroot yes the file mode is correct so I assume autosetup w/o
-S git is sufficient
>
> 3) %package webui etc. -> should they all (except maybe doc) have: Requires:
> %{name} = %{?epoch:%{epoch}:}%{version}-%{release} ?
Done
>
> 4) Requires: git -> is git-core not good enough?
Yes it seems sufficient, so I've switch for git-core.
>
> 5) various manual Requires on python3-... -> is the dependency generator
> not working? I see you rm requirements.txt, why is that?
>
Ok so I'll have a deeper look into that in the next round.
>
> 6) # Fix non compliant shebangs ... -> the complex fins+sed can be replaced
> with a single pathfix.py call (see /usr/bin/pathifx.py, also macronized as
> %py3_shebang_fix in rawhide, backports in progress)
>
Done, but I was unable to use the macro neither to find it.
>
> 7) %{python3_sitelib}/zuul-*.egg-info -> consider adding trailing slash to
> assert this is a directory
Done
--
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
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1838027] Review Request: zuul - Trunk Gating System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838027
--- Comment #1 from Miro Hrončok ---
spec sanity:
1) %global srcname zuul -> consider dropping this, I don't see it used anywhere
in the spec
2) 0001-Remove-another-shebang-and-remove-useless-exec-bits.patch -> is the
mode thing supported by regular patch, or is %autosetup -S git needed for this?
3) %package webui etc. -> should they all (except maybe doc) have: Requires:
%{name} = %{?epoch:%{epoch}:}%{version}-%{release} ?
4) Requires: git -> is git-core not good enough?
5) various manual Requires on python3-... -> is the dependency generator not
working? I see you rm requirements.txt, why is that?
6) # Fix non compliant shebangs ... -> the complex fins+sed can be replaced
with a single pathfix.py call (see /usr/bin/pathifx.py, also macronized as
%py3_shebang_fix in rawhide, backports in progress)
7) %{python3_sitelib}/zuul-*.egg-info -> consider adding trailing slash to
assert this is a directory
--
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
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1838027] Review Request: zuul - Trunk Gating System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838027 Fabien Boucher changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fbouc...@redhat.com, ||mhron...@redhat.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
