Hi Chris,

On Sun, Nov 6, 2022 at 11:15 AM Christofer Dutz <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Sorry I must do this … but …
>
> -1  (Chirs)
>

To avoid confusion, posting your feedback in the future without adding a
"-1" is more helpful and appropriate such that it is not misconstrued as an
actual vote.


> [MINOR] Download all staged artifacts under the url specified in the
> release vote email.
>
>   *   Generally, we like our download artifacts to be prefixed with
> “apache-“
>

https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/httpd/ as a counter example.
That said, I actually see a benefit to the apache- prefix here, given the
non ASF maintenance releases.  It will make it easier to distinguish.


>   *   Most projects generally use a {version}/{rc}/ directory structure
> with a KEYS file in the projects root
> [FAILED] Verify the signature is correct.
>

I'm expecting us to put a KEYS file here
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/buildstream/.


>   *   No KEYS file containing the public signatures of the release-manager
> used to sign the release
>   *   Couldn’t find key on any public servers I searched

[OK] Check if the signature references an Apache email address.
> [OK] Verify the SHA512 hashes.
>
>   *   Both Hashes match
> [OK] Unpack the archive.
> [OK] Verify the existence of LICENSE, NOTICE files in the extracted source
> bundle.
> [MINOR] Verify the content of LICENSE, NOTICE files in the extracted
> source bundle.
>
>   *   The NOTICE file of the plugins archive references 2021
> [FAILED] [RM] Run RAT externally to ensure there are no surprises.
>
>   *   Main bundle:
>      *   1924 Unknown Licenses for the main bundle (Attached as rat.txt)
>

The bulk seems to be tests and docs?  The docs should be more easily
addressable.


>      *   Some sources seem to be GPL licensed:
>         *
>  BuildStream-1.95.4.dev0/src/buildstream/_scheduler/queues/cachequeryqueue.py
>

That's a good catch - this one seems to have slipped through the cracks
back when the changes landed in January after iterating on them from
September 2021.


>      *   Some sources don’t seem to be having any header:
>         *   BuildStream-1.95.4.dev0/src/buildstream/_scheduler/resources.py
>

I can see how this one happened, it didn't have a header since it was
introduced in a refactoring in 2018.  Good catch as well.


>      *   Tests/integration/project/files/amhello.tar.gz (all other copies
> of this file too) is a binary file (which is generally not allowed) and
> contains GPL licensed content and is infringing that license by not
> distributing the license with it (which is even less allowed).
>

Note that these files all note "This program is free software; the Free
Software Foundation gives unlimited permission to copy, distribute and
modify it.", in line with generated autotools files.  That said, we could
have it not be in a tarball, and also given it is a test, we may be able to
download it at test time.


>      *   Admittedly I stopped a detailed analysis of other problems as
> this is already enough for a -1
>

Your input is appreciated.


>   *   Plugin bundle:
>      *   Rat reports: 17 Unknown Licenses for the plugin bundle (Attached
> as rat-plugin.txt)
> [OK] Search for Copyright references, and if they are in headers, make
> sure these files containing them are mentioned in the LICENSE file.
>

I see an .asf.yaml file which we don't need to distribute.  There's 2 empty
__init__.py files, 3 *_requirements.txt files.  The egg-info directories
are generated.
The setup.cfg file seems to have lost its header in the packaging process,
as it is there in the source repo.
The PKG-INFO file actually needs its Authors reference updated.


> I’ve uploaded the rat.log and rat-plugin.log here:
> https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1FaQj8TZbH3XMXxEvpEPazOGFd9L0rL4z?usp=sharing


Thanks again.

Cheers,

Sander

From: Benjamin Schubert <[email protected]>
> Date: Saturday, 5. November 2022 at 16:26
> To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release buildstream / plugins 1.95.4 as 2.0
> Hey everyone,
>
> > Le mer. 26 oct. 2022 à 15:55, Tristan Van Berkom
> > [email protected] a écrit :
> >
> > > buildstream-plugins-1.95.3.tar.gz
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > sha256:
> 2d33ed4cba762ccc09bbea060e089db08da5ce6150f903a03928da004dcaa387
> > > sha512:
> ee22235884e7dfa54f40bd2baa2df1c26284ce19b4393310cd54dbf60b9789dd075eadacb3189b2002b3254025ed02129fc2e451cadd48ce9ff4da4e8de8a92d
> > >
> > > BuildStream-1.95.4.dev0.tar.gz
> > > ------------------------------
> > > sha256:
> 77f3aafa1268e4128108ac54fd6231cd5b548b0f2b00d84c9c83fc19f7095f60
> > > sha512:
> 7cb335cc837cc70022ac398055e64c691863898daa2a9d0ae89270796b576e2ae692a2583c1a798cc34ba4769f73b92ff98ed26965f2ea2108df2c7ec490bc90
> >
>
> -0
>
> I believe https://github.com/apache/buildstream/issues/1787 should be a
> blocker for this release, as it would otherwise negatively impact the first
> experience with it.
>

Reply via email to