https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067015

James Slagle jslagle@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067015

--- Comment #2 from Steven Dake sdake@redhat.com --- James, Elements are installed in the wrong place.

For an example check out: https://github.com/sdake/fedora-reviews/blob/master/openstack-heat-templates...

Header isn't aligned - possible mixing of spaces and tabs

If your going to use a git commit without a tarball, please mark it properly in the spec file. For an example, see: https://github.com/sdake/fedora-reviews/blob/master/openstack-heat-templates...

Make sure to run the spec file, rpm file, and srpm file through rpmlint and fix any problems.

I'll provide a more thorough review once you submit a new package.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067015

--- Comment #4 from James Slagle jslagle@redhat.com --- Forgot I needed to make a change to one of the scripts to account for the change in element location:

Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/agroup/tripleo-rpm-spec-files/master/instack-underclo... SRPM URL: http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/openstack-m/openstack-m/fedora-20/SRPMS/...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067015

--- Comment #6 from Steven Dake sdake@redhat.com --- James,

Respinning is fine as long as you indicate what changed in the specfile between respins. This way I can track what was suggested to be changed vs what I should expect to be fixed :)

Regards -steve

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067015

--- Comment #8 from James Slagle jslagle@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/agroup/tripleo-rpm-spec-files/master/instack-underclo... SRPM URL: http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/openstack-m/openstack-m/fedora-20/SRPMS/...

Updated scripts installed under /usr/bin/ to be prefixed with instack-*.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067015

--- Comment #10 from Steven Dake sdake@redhat.com --- The version field is wrong for a git checkout. It should be:

Version: 0

Review: Package Review ==============

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

Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/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. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [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. [0]: 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 20480 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]: 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 %doc. [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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist [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 (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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: 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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint

Note I will run rpmlint manually after installing dependencies in a [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.1.36 starting... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux disabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Mock Version: 1.1.36 INFO: Mock Version: 1.1.36 Start: lock buildroot INFO: installing package(s): /home/sdake/fedora-review/1067015-instack-undercloud/results/instack-undercloud-0.0.1-0.1.20140324git.fc20.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # ['/usr/bin/yum', '--installroot', '/var/lib/mock/fedora-20-x86_64/root/', '--releasever', '20', 'install', '/home/sdake/fedora-review/1067015-instack-undercloud/results/instack-undercloud-0.0.1-0.1.20140324git.fc20.noarch.rpm'] Error: Package: instack-undercloud-0.0.1-0.1.20140324git.fc20.noarch (/instack-undercloud-0.0.1-0.1.20140324git.fc20.noarch) Requires: openstack-tripleo-image-elements You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem Error: Package: instack-undercloud-0.0.1-0.1.20140324git.fc20.noarch (/instack-undercloud-0.0.1-0.1.20140324git.fc20.noarch) Requires: instack Error: Package: instack-undercloud-0.0.1-0.1.20140324git.fc20.noarch (/instack-undercloud-0.0.1-0.1.20140324git.fc20.noarch) Requires: openstack-tripleo Error: Package: instack-undercloud-0.0.1-0.1.20140324git.fc20.noarch (/instack-undercloud-0.0.1-0.1.20140324git.fc20.noarch) Requires: openstack-tripleo-heat-templates You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest Rpmlint ------- Checking: instack-undercloud-0.0.1-0.1.20140324git.fc20.noarch.rpm instack-undercloud-0.0.1-0.1.20140324git.fc20.src.rpm instack-undercloud.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary instack-test-overcloud instack-undercloud.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary instack-virt-setup instack-undercloud.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary instack-prepare-for-overcloud instack-undercloud.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary instack-deploy-overcloud instack-undercloud.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary instack-install-undercloud instack-undercloud.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary instack-build-images instack-undercloud.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary instack-deploy-overcloud-tuskarcli instack-undercloud.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary instack-install-undercloud-packages instack-undercloud.src: W: no-%build-section 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.

Requires -------- instack-undercloud (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash /usr/bin/python instack openstack-tripleo openstack-tripleo-heat-templates openstack-tripleo-image-elements

Provides -------- instack-undercloud: instack-undercloud

Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/slagle/instack-undercloud/archive/6e161d534fcf607da31db76... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a807a714bdbb5a4fc6ac2c6d234ae82cba29482f20478d0dfd2d25364c721d03 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a807a714bdbb5a4fc6ac2c6d234ae82cba29482f20478d0dfd2d25364c721d03

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067015

--- Comment #12 from James Slagle jslagle@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/agroup/tripleo-rpm-spec-files/master/instack-underclo... SRPM URL: http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/openstack-m/openstack-m/fedora-20/SRPMS/...

Fixed version to be 0.

The packages should be used with rawhide, as they're not for F20. All rawhide builds for the dependent packages do already exist in Koji.

I successfully ran fedora-review against instack-undercloud like so: fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -n instack-undercloud

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067015

Steven Dake sdake@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+

--- Comment #14 from Steven Dake sdake@redhat.com --- Comment #12 package APPROVED.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067015

James Slagle jslagle@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #16 from James Slagle jslagle@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: instack-undercloud Short Description: Installation tools to install an undercloud via instack Owners: slagle Branches: f20 InitialCC:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067015

--- Comment #17 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067015

Perry Myers pmyers@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|pmyers@redhat.com |nobody@fedoraproject.org

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067015

Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed| |2017-09-15 14:15:27

--- Comment #20 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu --- No idea why this is still open; the package went in and then was retired.

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor