[Bug 854764] New: Review Request:openshift-origin-port-proxy - Script to configure HAProxy to do port forwarding for OpenShift Origin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854764
Bug ID: 854764 QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request:openshift-origin-port-proxy - Script to configure HAProxy to do port forwarding for OpenShift Origin Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: admiller@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora
Spec URL: http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/openshift-origin-port-proxy.spec SRPM URL: http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/openshift-origin-port-proxy-0.2.2-1.fc17...
Description: OpenShift Origin script to configure HAProxy to do port forwarding from internal to external ports.
Fedora Account System Username: maxamillion tdawson
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854764
Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |misc@zarb.org Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |misc@zarb.org Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854764
--- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org --- Hi, a few notes : * why does it requires procmail ? if that's for flock ( used in the script ), this is utils-linux in f17
* since openshift is not planned to run on epel5, I think you should clean the various stuff for epel5 ( %defattr, BuildRoot tag, rm -Rf in %clean, etc )
* why is the config copied in %post and not directly placed there directly by the rpm, and why do you run restorecon for that ? ( and why not run it with the configuration from /etc/ directly ? )
* spec would IMHO be cleaner with only non defaut %attr
* why are permission initscript set to 750, as there is
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854764
--- Comment #2 from Adam Miller admiller@redhat.com --- Spec URL: http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/openshift-origin-port-proxy.spec SRPM URL: http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/openshift-origin-port-proxy-0.2.2-2.fc17...
the procmail requirement was from upstream and is no longer needed, I went ahead and added all hard requirements just so that the package could actually be installed via kickstart in a nobase environment and resolve deps correctly, also stripped out old el5 build bits from the spec.
The perms on the initscript were also from upstream, I'm flexible on that though as I don't understand it to have any hard requirement for those specific perms.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854764
--- Comment #3 from Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org --- What do you mean in a "nobase environnement" ?
As far as i know, we consider that that least group core would be installed, so IMHO : coreutils initscripts util-linux-ng and iproute are counted as being installed on Fedora.
However, you are right for sed, as it doesn't seem to be there in minimal install.
Regarding old EL5 stuff, there is : rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %install too.
And as i may not have been clear, the part : %files %if %{with_systemd} %attr(0644,-,-) %{_unitdir}/stickshift-proxy.service %attr(0644,-,-) %{_sysconfdir}/sysconfig/stickshift-proxy %else %attr(0750,-,-) %{_initddir}/stickshift-proxy %endif %attr(0755,-,-) %{_bindir}/stickshift-proxy-cfg %dir %attr(0750,root,root) %{_localstatedir}/lib/stickshift/.stickshift-proxy.d %attr(0640,-,-) %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/stickshift/stickshift-proxy.cfg
would be cleaner as
%files %if %{with_systemd} %{_unitdir}/stickshift-proxy.service %{_sysconfdir}/sysconfig/stickshift-proxy %else %{_initddir}/stickshift-proxy %endif %{_bindir}/stickshift-proxy-cfg %dir %attr(0750,-,-) %{_localstatedir}/lib/stickshift/.stickshift-proxy.d %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/stickshift/stickshift-proxy.cfg
Since permissions are already set in the spec by install a few line before.
I do not understand when the config from /etc/ is copied to /var to be used by the service, can you clarify that, and decide which one should be dropped ( because having 2 configuration when only one is used doesn't make sense ) ?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854764
Rob Millner rmillner@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rmillner@redhat.com
--- Comment #4 from Rob Millner rmillner@redhat.com --- I believe we can just have one copy of the configuration file and mark it as %config(noreplace).
The configuration file changes as the set of local gears change and as the cartridges embedded in a gear change.
Either location: %{_sysconfdir}/stickshift or %{_localstatedir}/lib/stickshift/.stickshift-proxy.d is acceptable. The latter is a convention also used by our per-gear http configuration.
Perhaps the best choice is to use %{_sysconfdir}/stickshift.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854764
--- Comment #5 from Adam Miller admiller@redhat.com --- I was referencing a --nobase install via kickstart, a previous employer of mine did all their installations like that to keep OS installs in the virtualization farm as minimal as possible. Don't know how realistic that is of a goal to meet but that was the motivation behind the explicit requires entries.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854764
--- Comment #6 from Adam Miller admiller@redhat.com --- Upstream made some modifications based on feedback.
https://github.com/openshift/crankcase/pull/467
I've packaged the latest version that includes these changes:
Spec URL: http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/openshift-origin-port-proxy.spec SRPM URL: http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/openshift-origin-port-proxy-0.2.3-1.fc17...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854764
--- Comment #7 from Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org --- I see there is a bugfix for this package upstream : https://github.com/openshift/crankcase/pull/449 I didn't have the time to test it yet, but is it applicable, and so, should it be backported ?
IMHO, it would be better to have /etc/sysconfig/stickshift-proxy be a file rather than be a directory with a file in it ( more consistent ).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854764
--- Comment #8 from Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org ---
Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated
Issues: ======= [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#ValidLicenseShor...
[!]: Package functions as described. See bugzilla for comment about the sysconfig file
[!]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names %post restorecon use /var/lib/ instrad of %_localstatedir as used before
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. Too much requires, as said in the review, and I would favor consistency over trying to have something leaner ( ie, it won't work if not everybody does this ). I would also recommend to comment the various Requires.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. /etc/stickshift/ is unowned
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. /etc/stickshift/ is unowned
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. (took the liberty of doing it : https://github.com/openshift/crankcase/pull/505 )
[!]: Hidden file or directory, seems rpmlint do not like this. That would also solve the issue of having 1 single configuration file.
[!]: /etc/sysconfig/stickshift-proxy is a directory, while it would be more consistent to have it be a file ( and that would fix bug where systemd file is not correctly opening the file, see earlier comment )
===== 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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [-]: 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 %doc. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [!]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [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) [!]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [!]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0 (openshift-origin-port-proxy-0.2.3.tar.gz) [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [-]: 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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define. Note: %define with_systemd 1 %define with_systemd 0
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: openshift-origin-port-proxy-0.2.3-1.fc17.src.rpm openshift-origin-port-proxy-0.2.3-1.fc17.noarch.rpm openshift-origin-port-proxy.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib openshift-origin-port-proxy.noarch: W: no-documentation openshift-origin-port-proxy.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/sysconfig/stickshift-proxy/stickshift-proxy.env openshift-origin-port-proxy.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /var/lib/stickshift/.stickshift-proxy.d openshift-origin-port-proxy.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/stickshift/.stickshift-proxy.d 0750L openshift-origin-port-proxy.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /var/lib/stickshift/.stickshift-proxy.d openshift-origin-port-proxy.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary stickshift-proxy-cfg 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint openshift-origin-port-proxy openshift-origin-port-proxy.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib openshift-origin-port-proxy.noarch: W: no-documentation openshift-origin-port-proxy.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/sysconfig/stickshift-proxy/stickshift-proxy.env openshift-origin-port-proxy.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /var/lib/stickshift/.stickshift-proxy.d openshift-origin-port-proxy.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/stickshift/.stickshift-proxy.d 0750L openshift-origin-port-proxy.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /var/lib/stickshift/.stickshift-proxy.d openshift-origin-port-proxy.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary stickshift-proxy-cfg 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- openshift-origin-port-proxy-0.2.3-1.fc17.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/bash /bin/sh config(openshift-origin-port-proxy) = 0.2.3-1.fc17 coreutils haproxy initscripts iproute sed systemd-units util-linux-ng
Provides -------- openshift-origin-port-proxy-0.2.3-1.fc17.noarch.rpm:
config(openshift-origin-port-proxy) = 0.2.3-1.fc17 openshift-origin-port-proxy = 0.2.3-1.fc17
MD5-sum check ------------- https://mirror.openshift.com/pub/openshift-origin/source/openshift-origin-po... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5984aa174e07c2ce44dd18d6b8f4ac3226743e016498c58c9897d7b450286385 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5984aa174e07c2ce44dd18d6b8f4ac3226743e016498c58c9897d7b450286385
Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0 (Unknown) last change: Unknown Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 854764
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854764
--- Comment #9 from Rob Millner rmillner@redhat.com ---
IMHO, it would be better to have /etc/sysconfig/stickshift-proxy be a file rather than be a directory with a file in it ( more consistent ).
[!]: Package functions as described. See bugzilla for comment about the sysconfig file
This has been fixed in master and should show up in the next package revision.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854764
--- Comment #10 from Rob Millner rmillner@redhat.com ---
Pull request to cover the following issues: [!]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
https://github.com/openshift/crankcase/pull/512
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854764
--- Comment #11 from Rob Millner rmillner@redhat.com --- The pull request has been updated to resolve the following issue: [!]: Hidden file or directory, seems rpmlint do not like this. That would
https://github.com/openshift/crankcase/pull/512
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854764
--- Comment #12 from Adam Miller admiller@redhat.com --- Spec URL: http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/openshift-origin-port-proxy.spec SRPM URL: http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/openshift-origin-port-proxy-0.3.3-1.fc17...
I updated to latest upstream which includes the patches referenced above as well as updated the Requires: as per recommendations.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854764
Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #13 from Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org ---
%post /sbin/restorecon %{_sharedstatedir}/stickshift/.stickshift-proxy.d/ || :
is no longer needed. In fact the spec on fedora people is not the same as the one in git, so if you update with the patch in git, it should be ok.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854764
--- Comment #14 from Adam Miller admiller@redhat.com --- Spec URL: http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/openshift-origin-port-proxy.spec SRPM URL: http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/openshift-origin-port-proxy-0.3.3-2.fc17...
Fixed that un-needed bit in the %post
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854764
--- Comment #15 from Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org --- The package was approved yesterday, so you can already ask for git repo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854764
--- Comment #16 from Adam Miller admiller@redhat.com --- oh, awesome! thanks :)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854764
--- Comment #17 from Adam Miller admiller@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: openshift-origin-port-proxy Short Description: Script to configure HAProxy to do port forwarding for OpenShift Origin Owners: maxamillion tdawson Branches: f17 f18
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854764
Adam Miller maxamillion@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |maxamillion@fedoraproject.o | |rg Flags| |fedora-cvs?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854764
--- Comment #18 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854764
Troy Dawson tdawson@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854764
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854764
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- openshift-origin-port-proxy-1.1.1-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openshift-origin-port-proxy-1.1.1-2....
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854764
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854764
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- openshift-origin-port-proxy-1.1.1-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854764
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed| |2012-12-07 23:26:59
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854764
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- openshift-origin-port-proxy-1.1.1-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla