[Bug 1346249] Review Request: resultsdb - Results store for automated tasks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1346249

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 CC||ppi...@redhat.com
   Fixed In Version||resultsdb-2.0.2-1.fc24
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
Last Closed||2021-06-04 08:09:26




-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1346249] Review Request: resultsdb - Results store for automated tasks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1346249

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1346249] Review Request: resultsdb - Results store for automated tasks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1346249

Bugzilla account termination  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|jku...@redhat.com   |nob...@fedoraproject.org



-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1346249] Review Request: resultsdb - Results store for automated tasks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1346249



--- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/resultsdb

-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1346249] Review Request: resultsdb - Results store for automated tasks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1346249

Jiri Kulda  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review+



-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1346249] Review Request: resultsdb - Results store for automated tasks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1346249



--- Comment #7 from Tim Flink  ---
(In reply to Jiri Kulda from comment #6)
> Ok thanks for explanation. Due to this I'm putting ack for this package.

Assuming that I'm interpreting your comment correctly as a pass on this package
review, could you set fedora-review to '+' so that the remaining processes can
be kicked off?

-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1346249] Review Request: resultsdb - Results store for automated tasks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1346249



--- Comment #6 from Jiri Kulda  ---
Ok thanks for explanation. Due to this I'm putting ack for this package.

-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1346249] Review Request: resultsdb - Results store for automated tasks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1346249



--- Comment #5 from Martin Krizek  ---
You need to change SECRET_KEY in /etc/resultsdb/settings.py to something other
than default. This behaviour should probably change upstream though, but that's
not related to the package review.

-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1346249] Review Request: resultsdb - Results store for automated tasks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1346249



--- Comment #4 from Jiri Kulda  ---
Package Review
==

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



= 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.
[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.
[x]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
[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]: 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]: 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]: 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]: 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

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
 process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
 provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: 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).
[!]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

= EXTRA items =

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).


Rpmlint
---

[Bug 1346249] Review Request: resultsdb - Results store for automated tasks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1346249



--- Comment #3 from Martin Krizek  ---
(In reply to Jiri Kulda from comment #1)
> Package Review
> ==
> 
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> [ ] = Manual review needed
> 
> 
> 
> = 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: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 18 files have
>  unknown license. 
> [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.
> [x]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
>  (~1MB) or number of files.
>  Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 4 files.
> [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]: 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]: 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]: 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]: 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
> 
> Python:
> [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
>  process.
> [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
>  provide egg info.
> [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
> [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
> [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
> 
> = SHOULD items =
> 
> Generic:
> [x]: 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).
> [x]: Package functions as described.
> [x]: Latest version is packaged.
> [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
> [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.
> [x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
> [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
>  files.
> [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
> [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
> [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
> [x]: Buildroot is not present
> 

[Bug 1346249] Review Request: resultsdb - Results store for automated tasks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1346249

Jaroslav Škarvada  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jskar...@redhat.com



--- Comment #2 from Jaroslav Škarvada  ---
(In reply to Jiri Kulda from comment #1)
> - If settings.py.example is a configuration file than it should be installed
> in /etc/* without .example suffix

And executable files shouldn't be in /etc, nor in /usr/share/*. Also .pyc,
.pyo. shouldn't be in /usr/share/* (you will have to workaround python
autocompile directories).

-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1346249] Review Request: resultsdb - Results store for automated tasks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1346249



--- Comment #1 from Jiri Kulda  ---
Package Review
==

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



= 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: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 18 files have
 unknown license. 
[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.
[x]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 4 files.
[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]: 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]: 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]: 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]: 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

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
 process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
 provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

[Bug 1346249] Review Request: resultsdb - Results store for automated tasks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1346249

Jiri Kulda  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jku...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jku...@redhat.com



-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org