https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1909767 --- Comment #1 from Christophe de Dinechin <dinechin@xxxxxxxxxx> --- c3d top-level comments: - A few suggested changes, search for [S] below. Nothing really blocking - Why do we mark this as conflicting with kata-ksm-throttler? I need to check if kata-ksm-throttler is still supposed to work with 2.0 but I see no reason why not. - Consider Obsoletes instead of Conflicts for packages such as kata-runtime or kata-shim. I will trust your choice, however, if you tell me that Conflicts: is better in that specific case. - Have you tried installing back and forth between 1.x and 2.0 packages? - When this is accepted, can we add a Conflicts: in the other packages? ---- Automated stuff below ----- This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed [M] = Manual review done (Christophe de Dinechin, aka c3d [S] = Manual review non-blocking suggestion (Christophe de Dinechin, aka c3d Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ - Permissions on files are set properly. Note: See rpmlint output See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_file_permissions ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [M]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [M]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [M]: 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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "[generated file]", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* [generated file]", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Expat License", "Apache License 2.0", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "ISC License", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License 2.0", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3". 2683 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ddd/1909767-kata- containers/licensecheck.txt c3d: Did not have time to check all the generated files, because c3d: they use @generated, which is not known to fedora-review [M]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/libexec/kata- containers(kata-runtime, kata-shim, kata-osbuilder, kata-agent, kata- proxy), /usr/libexec/kata-containers/agent(kata-agent), /usr/libexec/kata-containers/agent/usr(kata-agent), /usr/libexec/kata- containers/agent/usr/bin(kata-agent), /usr/libexec/kata- containers/agent/usr/lib(kata-agent), /usr/libexec/kata- containers/agent/usr/lib/systemd(kata-agent), /usr/libexec/kata- containers/agent/usr/lib/systemd/system(kata-agent), /usr/libexec/kata-containers/osbuilder(kata-osbuilder), /usr/libexec/kata-containers/osbuilder/dracut(kata-osbuilder), /usr/libexec/kata-containers/osbuilder/dracut/dracut.conf.d(kata- osbuilder), /usr/libexec/kata-containers/osbuilder/image-builder(kata- osbuilder), /usr/libexec/kata-containers/osbuilder/initrd- builder(kata-osbuilder), /usr/libexec/kata- containers/osbuilder/rootfs-builder(kata-osbuilder), /usr/libexec/kata-containers/osbuilder/scripts(kata-osbuilder), /usr/share/kata-containers(kata-runtime), /usr/share/kata- containers/defaults(kata-runtime), /var/cache/kata-containers(kata- osbuilder) c3d: OK because the relevant "Conflicts:" clauses are present. [M]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. c3d: Checked for the single manual build (nsdax) [M]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [M]: Changelog in prescribed format. [M]: 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 [M]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [M]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [M]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [M]: Package does not generate any conflict. c3d: Considered OK because of Conflict: rules [M]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [S]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. c3d: Do we want to maintain two parallel packages for now? c3d: There is no Obsolete: or Provides: for kata-runtime, for example [S]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. c3d: Used to build the images - Possibly add a comment? [S]: Only use %_sourcedir in very specific situations. Note: %_sourcedir/$RPM_SOURCE_DIR is used. c3d: Add comment to explain why you need it? [M]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [M]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [?]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. c3d: The macros look good to me, but I did not try the package [S]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. c3d: The package does have ExcludeArch, for good reasons I believe c3d: Add comment on the reasons (do we have a BZ or a JIRA?) [M]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files. [M]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package 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]: 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]: 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 kata-containers [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [M]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. c3d: Contains LICENSE file for Apache 2.0 [M]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [M]: Package functions as described. [M]: Latest version is packaged. [M]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [S]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. c3d: Justified in patch text c3d: Issue upstream exists and is documented in patch (#1203) c3d: Explain why we need to vendor Rust code that way but not Go? [-]: 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. [M]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [S]: %check is present and all tests pass. c3d: No %check at the moment, running it locally is difficult c3d: Consider adding a "make check LIBC=gnu" step? [M]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [S]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define have_go_rpm_macros 1, %define have_go_rpm_macros 0, %define qemu qemu-kvm, %define qemupath %{_bindir}/%{qemu}, %define qemupath %{_libexecdir}/%{qemu}, %define machinetype "virt", %define machinetype "pseries", %define machinetype "s390-ccw-virtio", %define machinetype "q35" c3d: Probably worth changing these to silence the warning? [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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: kata-containers-2.0.0-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm kata-containers-2.0.0-1.fc31.src.rpm kata-containers.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Kata Containers version 2.x repository. [S] c3d: Please fix, easy to do. kata-containers.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/containerd-shim-kata-v2 kata-containers.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/kata-monitor kata-containers.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/kata-runtime kata-containers.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/libexec/kata-containers/agent/usr/bin/kata-agent kata-containers.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/libexec/kata-containers/kata-netmon kata-containers.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/libexec/kata-containers/osbuilder/nsdax [S] c3d: I don't remember seeing that for the 1.x packages. Please investigate why. kata-containers.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/libexec/kata-containers/osbuilder/image-builder/nsdax.gpl.c [M] c3d: Justified for the use case. kata-containers.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/libexec/kata-containers/osbuilder/kata-osbuilder.sh 775 [S] c3d: Should probably be addressed kata-containers.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/bash-completion/completions/kata-runtime 644 /bin/bash [S] c3d: I think it's a missing shebang, see the following lines in kata-runtime.spec: # keep: Minor local patches Patch0001: 0001-Remove-shebang-in-non-executable-completion-script.patch kata-containers.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary containerd-shim-kata-v2 kata-containers.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kata-collect-data.sh kata-containers.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kata-monitor kata-containers.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kata-runtime [S] c3d: Please consider opening an issue upstream kata-containers.x86_64: W: empty-%postun [M] c3d: Why is this flagged? There is a %systemd_postun there. kata-containers.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Kata Containers version 2.x repository. kata-containers.src: W: strange-permission kata-osbuilder.sh 775 kata-containers.src:92: W: macro-in-comment %check [S] Please remove the %chek in the comment (all the more since we have no %check yet ;-) kata-containers.src:281: E: use-of-RPM_SOURCE_DIR [M] c3d: Same as in kata-runtime. If you have an idea on how to fix it? 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 16 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- kata-containers.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Kata Containers version 2.x repository. kata-containers.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/containerd-shim-kata-v2 kata-containers.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/kata-monitor kata-containers.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/kata-runtime kata-containers.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/libexec/kata-containers/agent/usr/bin/kata-agent kata-containers.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/libexec/kata-containers/kata-netmon kata-containers.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/libexec/kata-containers/osbuilder/nsdax kata-containers.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/libexec/kata-containers/osbuilder/image-builder/nsdax.gpl.c kata-containers.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/libexec/kata-containers/osbuilder/kata-osbuilder.sh 775 kata-containers.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/bash-completion/completions/kata-runtime 644 /bin/bash kata-containers.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary containerd-shim-kata-v2 kata-containers.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kata-collect-data.sh kata-containers.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kata-monitor kata-containers.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kata-runtime kata-containers.x86_64: W: empty-%postun 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 13 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/kata-containers/kata-containers/archive/2.0.0/kata-containers-2.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 58b0c3891c6be79b8783466109d17131ce4a169e29a5d0c029f00307bfe5a634 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 58b0c3891c6be79b8783466109d17131ce4a169e29a5d0c029f00307bfe5a634 Requires -------- kata-containers (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/bash busybox dracut kernel ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libutil.so.1()(64bit) qemu-kvm-core rtld(GNU_HASH) systemd Provides -------- kata-containers: kata-containers kata-containers(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1909767 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, fonts, Ocaml, Perl, Python, PHP, SugarActivity, R, Haskell 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
