https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816858 Cole Robinson <crobinso(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |dinechin(a)redhat.com, | |fidencio(a)redhat.com Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |fidencio(a)redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Cole Robinson <crobinso(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Assigning to Fabiano but maybe c3d wants to take it, both cc'd -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816858 Fabiano Fidêncio <fidencio(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(crobinso(a)redhat.c | |om) --- Comment #2 from Fabiano Fidêncio <fidencio(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Cole, Before actually going through the tedious official review process, there's one thing that caught my attention. Here's the output of the unpacked RPM: Eveyrthing is fine until here ... I'd rather place the kata-agent binary together with kata-netmonm, kata-proxy, and kata-shim, in /usr/libexec/kata-containers For the systemd files, I'd rather place them in /usr/libexec/kata-containers/agent/systemd/ Everything else is fine. So, comments made, may I ask your take on those? Is there some specific reason behind the dir structure chosen for kata-agent binary and systemd files? -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816858 --- Comment #4 from Fabiano Fidêncio <fidencio(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [-]: Package contains no static executables. [-]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [-]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. * Well, /usr/libexec/kata-containers is also owned by kata-shim / kata-runtime / kata-proxy. Is this an issue? I don't think so. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: 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 [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. [-]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. * There's no -debuginfo package, but AFAIU it wouldn't be needed. [!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. * Package doesn't build on arm32, but this shouldn't be blocker. [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 * As much as possible, as it also tries to be compatible with EL8. [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]: Permissions on files are set properly. [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]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: 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. [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [!]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. * gpgverify is not used, but shouldn't be a blocker [?]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [!]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. * arm32 is not supported for now [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. * Not exactly an issue for now. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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. [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). [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-agent-1.11.0-0.1.alpha1.fc33.x86_64.rpm kata-agent-1.11.0-0.1.alpha1.fc33.src.rpm kata-agent.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US osbuilder -> bodybuilder, builder kata-agent.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/libexec/kata-containers/agent/usr/bin/kata-agent kata-agent.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US osbuilder -> bodybuilder, builder 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- perl: warning: Setting locale failed. perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: LANGUAGE = (unset), LC_ALL = (unset), LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8", LANG = "en_US.UTF-8" are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). perl: warning: Setting locale failed. perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: LANGUAGE = (unset), LC_ALL = (unset), LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8", LANG = "en_US.UTF-8" are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). kata-agent.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US osbuilder -> bodybuilder, builder kata-agent.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/kata-containers/agent <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> kata-agent.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/libexec/kata-containers/agent/usr/bin/kata-agent 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816858 --- Comment #5 from Christophe de Dinechin <dinechin(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Reviewed the spec file rapidly. Looks good to me with two notes: 1) Do we need the -Sgit option for autosetup? 2) I would use the same DESTDIR for both make and make install. Often, makefiles introduce hard-to-debug dependencies on make variables, we don't want some mysterious failure down the line. -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816858 --- Comment #7 from Cole Robinson <crobinso(a)redhat.com&gt; --- (In reply to Christophe de Dinechin from comment #5) If using git format-patch output for .patch files in the repo, using -Sgit can be required in some instances IIRC, but I don't remember the details. We can probably get away with out it, it's just what I use by default. Good point, I will add that before committing -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816858 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2020-6cc0bb7f4f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-6cc0bb7f4f -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816858 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2020-04-02 00:31:25 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2020-6cc0bb7f4f has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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