https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1773467 lnie <lnie(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|rawhide |31 -- 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=1773467 Richard W.M. Jones <rjones(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rjones(a)redhat.com Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |rjones(a)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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1773467 Richard W.M. Jones <rjones(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(lnie(a)redhat.com) --- Comment #3 from Richard W.M. Jones <rjones(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Here is another issue raised by fedora-review which should be fixed (along with the things above) before I continue with the review: - 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. Note: License file LICENSE is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidel... Instead of %doc README.rst LICENSE use: %doc README.rst %license LICENSE -- 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=1773467 --- Comment #5 from Richard W.M. Jones <rjones(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Don't bother to do an update until I post the full review, but there are still a few small things to fix: (1) %dir /%{_sysconfdir}/avocado and %dir /%{_sysconfdir}/avocado/conf.d You don't need the initial "/" because %{_sysconfdir} expands to /etc, so this expands to //etc/avocado (2) Remove Group (3) dont' -> don't in comment (4) You can completely remove with_python3 as well. At the moment if the RPM isn't built on Fedora 31 / RHEL 8 then nothing gets built (notice that %build will be completely empty unless with_python3 == 1). -- 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=1773467 lnie <lnie(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(lnie(a)redhat.com) | --- Comment #7 from lnie <lnie(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Hi Richard, I have contacted the upstream maintainer,and here is what he said about the #!/usr/bin/python and /usr/bin/env python: There are indeed a number of files that are libraries, and at the same time provide some level of "script" (aka command-line utilities) capabilities... I have modified the code as his suggest and sent a PR in upstream The point here is that these scripts will be copied to guest VM instances, which may be running Operating Systems that can haveeither Python 2 or Python 3, but it's impossible to know for sure at packaging time. Here is his reply: The base issue is that some functionality could not be implemented in pure Python, but still the packaging was kept "noarch" and relying on Avocado-VT's own handling of source code compilation. Ideally, this should be done at build time, in either or both setup.py and the spec file.For instance, virttest/passfd.py has code to compile passfd.c "on the go". This is for historical reasons, but it should probably be done on setup.py instead. Also notice that in the specific case of passfd.c, this is only required on Python 2 (because of a Python 2 limitation). For other files, such as finish.cpp, I expect that these days it could be replaced by some Windows script that would not need a previous compilation. This is probably also an upstream-able issue. Anyway,I was told that they are used by some special cases which test windows guest. Those executable files in those folders are installed in windows guest for some special purpose, maybe I can remove it in Pagure(I have created a mirror of avocado-vt project in Pagure) if needed. -- 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=1773467 Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mhroncok(a)redhat.com --- Comment #9 from Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com&gt; --- When you have scripts with shebangs copied onto guest VM instances there are several options, sorted "the best first" based on my opinion: 1. create the shebangs upon copying, based on some settings about the VM or other options 2. keep the files in the package as nonexecutables, add the executable bit after copying 3. disable the shebangs check/mangling for certain files, but be very verbose about what's going on in the comment - the current comment is not clear enough on why nor it makes any sense to me ---------------- This is forbidden, pygobject2 is Python 2: Requires: pygobject2 ---------------- This is unnecessary: Requires: python3 And this is suspicious: Requires: python3-devel ---------------- This is outdated: %{__python3} setup.py build -> use %py3_build instead %{__python3} setup.py install --root %{buildroot} --skip-build -> use %py3_install instead -- 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=1773467 --- Comment #11 from lnie <lnie(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Hi Miro, Thanks for your review,I have modified the spec file accordingly except the shebang thing, as I think I may need ask help from the upstream maintainer about that. -- 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=1773467 --- Comment #13 from lnie <lnie(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Hi Miro, Got it and thanks,I will upload a new package accordingly after I get new feedback from Richard. -- 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=1773467 --- Comment #15 from lnie <lnie(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Hi, I have sent an email to Cleber last Wednesday,but hasn't received any reply,maybe he is too busy to handle this thing? Could we leave the top-level requires there? -- 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=1773467 --- Comment #17 from Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com&gt; --- (In reply to lnie from comment #15) No. They are broken. You question mostly could be translated as: Could we have a broken package approved? -- 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=1773467 Richard W.M. Jones <rjones(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|rjones(a)redhat.com |nobody(a)fedoraproject.org --- Comment #19 from Richard W.M. Jones <rjones(a)redhat.com&gt; --- This is still problematic because there are still multiple issues that haven't been addressed. Perhaps a Copr repo is a better place for this package to live, and it seems like you are already doing Copr builds. Anyway I am unassigning myself from this 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1773467 --- Comment #21 from Richard W.M. Jones <rjones(a)redhat.com&gt; --- I would suggest reading back over all the comments in this bug to ensure that everything mentioned has been fixed. Then run the 'fedora-review' program yourself on the package, as that will find other issues. Just because I've untaken this bug doesn't mean that you can't find someone else in the Fedora community who could review it, I simply don't have the time at the moment, so best of luck. -- 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=1773467 Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m(a)gmail.com --- Comment #23 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com&gt; --- - Please split your BR and RR one per line - Don't use macros starting with __, they are for rpm private use: %install mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/avocado/conf.d %py3_install mv %{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib}/avocado_vt/conf.d/* %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/avocado/conf.d - The changelog entry must match the version-release in the header. I suggest you cut down the changelog prior to Fedora import. And add your entry with your name and email. -- 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=1773467 --- Comment #25 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Package is not installable: DEBUG util.py:600: Error: DEBUG util.py:600: Problem: conflicting requests DEBUG util.py:600: - nothing provides python3.8dist(aexpect) needed by python3-avocado-vt-77.0-1.fc33.noarch DEBUG util.py:600: - nothing provides python3-avocado >= 51.0 needed by python3-avocado-vt-77.0-1.fc33.noarch DEBUG util.py:600: - nothing provides python3.8dist(avocado-framework) >= 68 needed by python3-avocado-vt-77.0-1.fc33.noarch DEBUG util.py:602: (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages or '--nobest' to use not only best candidate packages) - Own these directories: [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/avocado-plugins-vt/backends, /usr/share/avocado-plugins-vt/shared, /usr/share/avocado-plugins- vt/test-providers.d, /usr/share/avocado-plugins-vt Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ ===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License (v2) GNU Lesser General Public License", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GNU General Public License", "GPL (v2)". 820 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/avocado- vt/review-avocado-vt/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/avocado-plugins-vt/backends, /usr/share/avocado-plugins-vt/shared, /usr/share/avocado-plugins- vt/test-providers.d, /usr/share/avocado-plugins-vt [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. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: 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 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]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== 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 (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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. [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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 2.1 starting (python version = 3.8.2)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins INFO: Signal handler active Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start: cleaning package manager metadata Finish: cleaning package manager metadata INFO: enabled ccache INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 2.1 INFO: Mock Version: 2.1 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/bob/packaging/review/avocado-vt/review-avocado-vt/results/python3-avocado-vt-77.0-1.fc33.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/f33-candidate-x86_64/root/ --releasever 33 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk install /home/bob/packaging/review/avocado-vt/review-avocado-vt/results/python3-avocado-vt-77.0-1.fc33.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-avocado-vt-77.0-1.fc33.noarch.rpm avocado-vt-77.0-1.fc33.src.rpm python3-avocado-vt.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virt -> dirt, girt, vi rt avocado-vt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virt -> dirt, girt, vi rt 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 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=1773467 --- Comment #27 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com&gt; --- OK, still need to own these dirs thingie. -- 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=1773467 Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |zebob.m(a)gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #29 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Package approved. -- 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=1773467 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED --- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2020-16b0770846 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-16b0770846 -- 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=1773467 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2020-04-25 02:20:48 --- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2020-16b0770846 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