https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215874 Bug ID: 1215874 Summary: New package Request: WALinuxAgent - The Windows Azure Linux Agent Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 Version: 7.1 Component: distribution Severity: urgent Priority: medium Assignee: pm-rhel@xxxxxxxxxx Reporter: lwang@xxxxxxxxxx QA Contact: release-test-team@xxxxxxxxxx CC: error@xxxxxxxxxx, extras-qa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, i@xxxxxxxx, logans@xxxxxxxxxxx, lsmid@xxxxxxxxxx, nobody@xxxxxxxxxx, package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, pm-rhel@xxxxxxxxxx, richmattes@xxxxxxxxx, stephen.zarkos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, vpavlin@xxxxxxxxxx Depends On: 1215872, 1159660 Group: private +++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #1215872 +++ +++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #1159660 +++ Spec URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/WALinuxAgent/WALinuxAgent.spec SRPM URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/WALinuxAgent/WALinuxAgent-2.0.8-6.fc22.src.rpm Description: The Windows Azure Linux Agent supports the provisioning and running of Linux VMs in the Windows Azure cloud. This package should be installed on Linux disk images that are built to run in the Windows Azure environment. Fedora Account System Username: cottsay Koji scratch builds: f19: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8010665 f20: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8010663 rpmlint output: SPECS/WALinuxAgent.spec:22: W: hardcoded-packager-tag Microsoft Corporation <walinuxagent@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> WALinuxAgent.src:22: W: hardcoded-packager-tag Microsoft Corporation <walinuxagent@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> WALinuxAgent.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/waagent.conf WALinuxAgent.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/waagent 0700L WALinuxAgent.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary waagent 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. Notes: - Upstream has tasked me with submitting and maintaining this package in Fedora and EPEL - Most of the spec file was taken from upstream, and has been designed to be as cross-platform as possible. It would be appreciated if it could remain as close to the original as possible while still adhering to Fedora packaging specs. --- Additional comment from Christopher Meng on 2014-11-03 01:17:52 EST --- Why did you still leave rpmlint unhappy? --- Additional comment from Christopher Meng on 2014-11-03 01:18:51 EST --- --- Additional comment from Scott K Logan on 2014-11-03 02:34:57 EST --- Thanks for linking to the other review request, Christopher. I meant to do so, but it must have slipped my mind. Also, I'm not the one who submitted that package initially, and I do not require a sponsor. I am already POC on multiple packages and have commit to many more. The single error that rpmlint reports regarding the /var/lib/waagent directory will need an exception. The agent stores vital information in that directory, and the authors of the tool have removed global read rights intentionally. I see many other directories in /var/lib/ with those permissions, so I didn't think it would be a problem. If it is, however, I'll need to bring it up with upstream to find a solution that is acceptable by all. Thanks again for taking a look, --scott --- Additional comment from Rich Mattes on 2014-11-26 13:11:43 EST --- I can handle this review. There are a bunch of good review comments in the previous review bug that apply to this review as well: specifically the ones relating to the python packaging guidelines at www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python I'll start tp work on a more thorough review. --- Additional comment from Rich Mattes on 2014-12-03 19:38:59 EST --- First pass with fedora-review, there are some issues. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Package should contain BR: python2-devel or python3-devel - Package should require python2 or python2 - Package should use __python2 or __python3 macros - attr and defattr aren't typically needed - waagent.conf doensn't have a replace or noreplace with %config - Buildroot not needed for epel 6+ and fedora - Vendor and Packager should be removed - /etc/logrotate.d not owned, OK for this package to own it. - epel7 can use the systemd init, right? ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Both are tests, not included in distribution. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/logrotate.d [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Test run failed [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [!]: 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 %doc. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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. Python: [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep [-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python %build section should contain setup.py build python versions and macros inconsistent ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file Note: Found : Packager: Microsoft Corporation <walinuxagent@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Found : Vendor: Microsoft Corporation See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags [!]: Buildroot is not present Note: Invalid buildroot found: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-build See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag [-]: 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. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if 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. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define initsys systemd, %define distro fedora, %define distro redhat, %define initsys sysV [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: WALinuxAgent-2.0.8-6.fc21.noarch.rpm WALinuxAgent-2.0.8-6.fc21.src.rpm WALinuxAgent.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/waagent.conf WALinuxAgent.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/waagent 0700L WALinuxAgent.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary waagent WALinuxAgent.src:22: W: hardcoded-packager-tag Microsoft Corporation <walinuxagent@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root@primus /]# rpmlint WALinuxAgent WALinuxAgent.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/waagent.conf WALinuxAgent.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/waagent 0700L WALinuxAgent.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary waagent 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. ]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root@primus /]# echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- WALinuxAgent (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/env config(WALinuxAgent) grep iptables net-tools openssh openssl python python-pyasn1 sed sudo systemd util-linux Provides -------- WALinuxAgent: WALinuxAgent config(WALinuxAgent) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Azure/WALinuxAgent/archive/WALinuxAgent-2.0.8.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : dd463f7dff906ff3ef5eb8152bed9a30892fa8f3e6147e3d15f7d483f4cc6096 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : dd463f7dff906ff3ef5eb8152bed9a30892fa8f3e6147e3d15f7d483f4cc6096 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1159660 -P Python Buildroot used: fedora-21-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG --- Additional comment from Scott K Logan on 2014-12-20 19:42:45 EST --- Okay, I'm starting to see that re-factoring the sample spec is not going to work. At this rate, we will have modified the entire thing just to meet packaging specifications. I made a spec from scratch that should conform. Spec URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/WALinuxAgent2/WALinuxAgent.spec SRPM URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/WALinuxAgent2/WALinuxAgent-2.0.11-1.fc22.src.rpm Notes: - %config without (noreplace) implies replace. You can't actually specify (replace) with %config. In any case, I'm pretty sure this should be (noreplace), so I changed it. - logrotate.d should not be owned by this package, only the single file inside it. - Do you think it is a good move to switch to systemd for epel7? You're more knowledgeable here, so I'll let you make the call and adjust the logic appropriately. Thanks, --scott --- Additional comment from Rich Mattes on 2014-12-22 12:39:08 EST --- Yeah that original spec was a big crufty mess... The package is simple enough that an all-new spec file is probably less work than sorting out the original. It looks pretty good now. As far as your notes go: - I think noreplace was the right way to go, otherwise local changes get blown away on every package update. The fedora-review warning was probably trying to make sure you weren't trying to do the wrong thing. - According to [1], it's OK to own dirs from other packages in the case where the other package doesn't provide any core functionality for your package. If you don't need logrotate, you should own the directory, otherwise you need a Requires: logrotate. - I think systemd is the right call for epel7. It's the supported init system now, so providing native service files over sysv init files is preferable. The only argument I can see for shipping the init script is el6->el7 upgrades, but el7 has been out long enough that it's probably not a huge issue. As for The Big Checklist goes, everything is now fixed except for: - The logrotate.d directory ownership - According to [2], you need to BR python2-devel or python3-devel. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#The_directory_is_owned_by_a_package_which_is_not_required_for_your_package_to_function [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires --- Additional comment from Scott K Logan on 2014-12-23 19:34:51 EST --- Thanks, Rich. I'll go ahead and make the package own logrotate.d. I had no idea that is how you were supposed to handle that situation. Thanks for the link! I'm not sure why I had BR: python-devel - I'll change that for sure. Silly mistake. As for epel7, I'll modify it to use systemd but I'd like to test it before we make final push. When I get back from vacation next week I'll give it a shot. --scott --- Additional comment from Scott K Logan on 2015-01-10 20:44:06 EST --- Okay, I believe that I have addressed all outstanding issues: - python-devel dependency changed to python2-devel - logrotate.d owned by WALinuxAgent - rhel >= 7 uses systemd instead of sysV Spec URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/WALinuxAgent2/WALinuxAgent.spec SRPM URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/WALinuxAgent2/WALinuxAgent-2.0.11-2.fc22.src.rpm Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8586099 I tested the package on CentOS 7 without any problems. Thanks, --scott --- Additional comment from Rich Mattes on 2015-01-11 16:00:04 EST --- Looks good now. This package is Approved. --- Additional comment from Scott K Logan on 2015-01-11 16:12:23 EST --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: WALinuxAgent Short Description: The Windows Azure Linux Agent Upstream URL: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=250998 Owners: cottsay Branches: f20 f21 el6 epel7 InitialCC: --- Additional comment from Jon Ciesla on 2015-01-11 16:39:13 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). --- Additional comment from Fedora Update System on 2015-01-12 14:11:30 EST --- WALinuxAgent-2.0.11-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/WALinuxAgent-2.0.11-2.el6 --- Additional comment from Fedora Update System on 2015-01-12 14:11:41 EST --- WALinuxAgent-2.0.11-2.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/WALinuxAgent-2.0.11-2.el7 --- Additional comment from Fedora Update System on 2015-01-12 14:11:52 EST --- WALinuxAgent-2.0.11-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/WALinuxAgent-2.0.11-2.fc21 --- Additional comment from Fedora Update System on 2015-01-12 14:12:02 EST --- WALinuxAgent-2.0.11-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/WALinuxAgent-2.0.11-2.fc20 --- Additional comment from Fedora Update System on 2015-01-13 17:08:18 EST --- WALinuxAgent-2.0.11-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. --- Additional comment from Fedora Update System on 2015-01-21 18:02:02 EST --- WALinuxAgent-2.0.11-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. --- Additional comment from Fedora Update System on 2015-01-21 18:05:38 EST --- WALinuxAgent-2.0.11-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. --- Additional comment from Fedora Update System on 2015-03-10 12:04:20 EDT --- WALinuxAgent-2.0.11-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. --- Additional comment from Fedora Update System on 2015-03-10 12:04:32 EDT --- WALinuxAgent-2.0.11-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1159660 [Bug 1159660] Review Request: WALinuxAgent - The Windows Azure Linux Agent https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215872 [Bug 1215872] New package Request: WALinuxAgent - The Windows Azure Linux Agent -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review