[Bug 1904696] Review Request: virt-backup - Backup script for libvirt managed VM

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1904696

Mikel Olasagasti Uranga <mikel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|                            |fedora-review?



--- Comment #5 from Mikel Olasagasti Uranga <mikel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ---
> I did add a require for perl itself.

Ok

>> - Why patch the .spec file from tarball with virt-backup-update.patch if it
>> not going to be installed/used?

> Because Daniel provides a spec file and I'm working with him to modernize it. I emailed him the same patch.

It doesn't make sense to patch during build if the file is not going to be
included in the package. Remove the .spec patching part.

> I did add a BR: on perl-generators though.

Ok

>> - Missing dep on qemu-img

> Fixed.

The qemu-img is required for the command, not for directory ownership. But next
point may remove that comment.

> That being said, I think at least requiring libvirt-libs is a good idea.

libvirt-libs shouldn't be added, rpmlint complains about it. If the script is
meant to be used locally libvirt-daemon-driver-qemu would take livirt-libs it
as dep and it would be expected it to be installed already. 


Must change:

- Don't include patch for files that are not part of the package
- Remove dep on libvirt-libs


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:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or
     generated", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 5 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/review-virt-
     backup/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: 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
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[ ]: 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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: Mock build failed
     See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
     guidelines/#_use_rpmlint
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Installation errors
-------------------
INFO: mock.py version 2.6 starting (python version = 3.9.0)...
Start: init plugins
INFO: selinux enabled
Finish: init plugins
INFO: Signal handler active
Start: run
Start: chroot init
INFO: calling preinit hooks
INFO: enabled root cache
INFO: enabled package manager cache
Start: cleaning package manager metadata
Finish: cleaning package manager metadata
INFO: enabled HW Info plugin
Mock Version: 2.6
INFO: Mock Version: 2.6
Finish: chroot init
INFO: installing package(s):
/tmp/review-virt-backup/results/virt-backup-0.2.25-2.fc34.noarch.rpm
ERROR: Command failed: 
 # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/
--releasever 34 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local
--disableplugin=spacewalk install
/tmp/review-virt-backup/results/virt-backup-0.2.25-2.fc34.noarch.rpm
--setopt=tsflags=nocontexts



Rpmlint
-------
Checking: virt-backup-0.2.25-2.fc34.noarch.rpm
          virt-backup-0.2.25-2.fc34.src.rpm
virt-backup.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libvirt-libs
virt-backup.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US optionnally ->
optionally, operationally, proportionally
virt-backup.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/libvirt/backup 770
virt-backup.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary virt-backup
virt-backup.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US optionnally ->
optionally, operationally, proportionally
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings.




Source checksums
----------------
https://git.fws.fr/fws/virt-backup/archive/virt-backup-0.2.25-1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
ddd28bba65ebfa6004da8b8687d6592c1d27876c859dfa25f8bfcb6a2fe100de
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
ddd28bba65ebfa6004da8b8687d6592c1d27876c859dfa25f8bfcb6a2fe100de


Requires
--------
virt-backup (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/perl
    bzip2
    chunkfs
    gzip
    libvirt-libs
    lvm2
    lzop
    perl
    perl(File::Copy)
    perl(File::Spec)
    perl(Getopt::Long)
    perl(LockFile::Simple)
    perl(Sys::Virt)
    perl(XML::Simple)
    qemu-img
    util-linux
    xz



Provides
--------
virt-backup:
    virt-backup



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -u
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1904696
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Perl, fonts, C/C++, SugarActivity, Python, PHP, R, Haskell,
Ocaml, Java
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH


-- 
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux