[Bug 1300003] Review Request: fleet-commander - Admin interface for Fleet Commander

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=133

Alberto Ruiz  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2016-02-13 05:33:45



--- Comment #17 from Alberto Ruiz  ---
Package is in

-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1300003] Review Request: fleet-commander - Admin interface for Fleet Commander

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=133



--- Comment #16 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/fleet-commander-admin

-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1300003] Review Request: fleet-commander - Admin interface for Fleet Commander

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=133



--- Comment #15 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/fleet-commander

-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1300003] Review Request: fleet-commander - Admin interface for Fleet Commander

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=133



--- Comment #13 from Oliver Gutiérrez  ---
Fixed. Tested on mock, fedora-review and built with koji in rawhide
(https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12893992)

SRPM url:
https://github.com/fleet-commander/fc-admin/releases/download/0.7.3/fleet-commander-admin-0.7.3-2.fc23.src.rpm

Spec url:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/fleet-commander/fc-admin/0.7.3/fleet-commander-admin.spec

-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1300003] Review Request: fleet-commander - Admin interface for Fleet Commander

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=133



--- Comment #11 from Oliver Gutiérrez  ---
New release including fixes for last revision by David King

SRPM url:
https://github.com/fleet-commander/fc-admin/releases/download/0.7.3/fleet-commander-admin-0.7.3-1.fc23.src.rpm

Spec url:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/fleet-commander/fc-admin/0.7.3/fleet-commander-admin.spec

-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1300003] Review Request: fleet-commander - Admin interface for Fleet Commander

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=133



--- Comment #12 from David King  ---
Some of the tests fail (and so the package does not build in koji nor mock):

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12890833
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/839/12890839/build.log

-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1300003] Review Request: fleet-commander - Admin interface for Fleet Commander

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=133

David King  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||dk...@redhat.com



--- Comment #10 from David King  ---
Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated


Issues:
===
- Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage
(I am not sure if this is necessary any more, with file triggers found in
recent rpm versions.)
- The %license macro must be used to list the COPYING* files.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
- The License tag mentions that the package is under LGPLv2+, but there are
some files which are GPLv2+.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios
- File/directory ownership, as listed below
- Bundles spice-html5 without a Provides (also some fonts, according to
fedora-review):
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Bundling_and_Duplication_of_system_libraries


= 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.
[!]: 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "LGPL", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11
 (BSD like)", "LGPL (v3 or later)", "BSD (3 clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD
 like) LGPL (v3 or later)". 21 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/david/checkout/rpms/133-fleet-
 commander-admin/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/share/fleet-commander-admin,
 /etc/dbus-1/system.d, /usr/share/fleet-commander-
 admin/python/fleetcommander, /usr/share/fleet-commander-admin/python
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/dbus-1/system.d,
 /usr/share/fleet-commander-admin, /usr/share/fleet-commander-
 admin/python, /usr/share/fleet-commander-admin/python/fleetcommander
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: 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]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[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 does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources 

[Bug 1300003] Review Request: fleet-commander - Admin interface for Fleet Commander

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=133



--- Comment #7 from Alberto Ruiz  ---
(In reply to David King from comment #6)
> * the %defattr line in the files section is useless (also, why have an
> executable desktop file?):
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/de...@lists.fedoraproject.org/
> thread/KEO7AX3JXR2TY6OVL4M7HDISZ6YIJNKU/

spice-html5 works as a submodule and most of those files come as 755, that's
why we need the %defattr otherwise we get even more problems with the
linter/reviewer complaining about scripts without a #! header

-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1300003] Review Request: fleet-commander - Admin interface for Fleet Commander

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=133



--- Comment #8 from Oliver Gutiérrez  ---
New release with fixes proposed by David King and other linter errors.

https://github.com/fleet-commander/fc-admin/releases/download/0.7.2/fleet-commander-admin-0.7.2-1.fc23.src.rpm
https://github.com/fleet-commander/fc-admin/releases/download/0.7.2/fleet-commander-admin-0.7.2.tar.xz

-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1300003] Review Request: fleet-commander - Admin interface for Fleet Commander

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=133



--- Comment #9 from Alberto Ruiz  ---
New comment with the SRPM and the raw spec file:

SRPM URL:
https://github.com/fleet-commander/fc-admin/releases/download/0.7.2/fleet-commander-admin-0.7.2-1.fc23.src.rpm
Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/fleet-commander/fc-admin/0.7.2/fleet-commander-admin.spec

-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1300003] Review Request: fleet-commander - Admin interface for Fleet Commander

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=133

David King  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||amigad...@amigadave.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|amigad...@amigadave.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #6 from David King  ---
I ran this through fedora-review, and came up with another list of things to
fix:

* the "Spec URL" should link to the spec file, not a link to a page that shows
the spec file (otherwise fedora-review -b  fails)
* python-devel should be either python2-devel or python3-devel
* the %defattr line in the files section is useless (also, why have an
executable desktop file?):
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/de...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/KEO7AX3JXR2TY6OVL4M7HDISZ6YIJNKU/
* missing a changelog entry for the 0.7.1-1 release
* duplicates in the files list: /var/lib/fleet-commander-admin/profiles
* unowned directories: /usr/share/fleet-commander-admin
/usr/lib64/fleet-commander/fleetcommander (and several others)
* config files need to be marked "noreplace" or clearly marked otherwise
* using libdir in a noarch package suggests that the package should not be
noarch (probably means that you need to read
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros if you haven't already)
* the description should be split over multipled lines, and not be one long
line

There are probably some other things, but fixing those should get me to the
next round of fedora-review warnings. :-)

-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1300003] Review Request: fleet-commander - Admin interface for Fleet Commander

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=133



--- Comment #5 from Alberto Ruiz  ---
https://github.com/fleet-commander/fc-admin/releases/download/0.7.1/fleet-commander-admin-0.7.1.tar.xz
https://github.com/fleet-commander/fc-admin/releases/download/0.7.1/fleet-commander-admin-0.7.1-1.fc23.src.rpm

-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1300003] Review Request: fleet-commander - Admin interface for Fleet Commander

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=133



--- Comment #4 from Oliver Gutiérrez  ---
Thank you Brandon. We have revised our specfile and added the sugggestions you
gave us about it.

Thanks 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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1300003] Review Request: fleet-commander - Admin interface for Fleet Commander

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=133

Brandon Thomas  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||bthoma...@gmail.com



--- Comment #3 from Brandon Thomas  ---
This is an unofficial review, and will not effect the status of this review
request.
* I believe the spec file should be named fleet-commander-admin.spec, since
fleet-commander only exists as two separate projects (fleet-commander-client
and fleet-commander-admin).
* As a corollary to that, since the package "fleet-commander" does not exist,
the subpackage fleet-commander-admin should be the main packages name.
* You probably want more information in your summaries and descriptions, since
a user probably doesn't know what fleet commander is.
* You should probably use "%make_build" over "make".
* It is not necessary to have a "%clean" section.
* Including fonts should be avoided. I'm not sure if this is because of some
technical restriction, but if possible, you should use the fonts provided 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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1300003] Review Request: fleet-commander - Admin interface for Fleet Commander

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=133



--- Comment #2 from Alberto Ruiz  ---
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12609074

-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1300003] Review Request: fleet-commander - Admin interface for Fleet Commander

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=133



--- Comment #1 from Alberto Ruiz  ---
This is the first package (alongside the one in #135) that I submit, even
though I already maintain the package ino, so I am probably going to need a
sponsor, I am also the maintainer of the upstream Fleet Commander project.

-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review