https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235343 Pavel Raiskup <praiskup(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |praiskup(a)redhat.com Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |praiskup(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=2235343

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235343 --- Comment #2 from Pavel Raiskup <praiskup(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Ah, Jirko, please provide a real SRPM URL :-) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235343 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235343 Jiří Kyjovský <jkyjovsk(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment|0 |updated --- Comment #0 has been edited --- spec and srpm downloadable from Copr repo Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/nikromen/fedora-pre-re... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/nikromen/fedora-pre-re... Description: Helper scripts for the Resalloc server (mostly used by Copr build system) for maintaining VMs in IBM Cloud (starting, stopping, cleaning orphans, etc.) Fedora Account System Username: nikromen -- 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=2235343

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235343 Pavel Raiskup <praiskup(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(jkyjovsk(a)redhat.c | |om) --- Comment #5 from Pavel Raiskup <praiskup(a)redhat.com&gt; --- - Can you use a SPDX license format? - I'd say that we can drop the ibm-specific BuildRequires, because we use %pyproject macros? - we should release, provide an upstream-downloadable link, and start from that Otherwise LGTM, thank you! Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages # praiskup - yes copr [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. # praiskup: Yes, but should be SPDX [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. # can be minimized? [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 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]: 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 Python: [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: 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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0: https://github.com/fedora-copr/resalloc-ibm-cloud/archive/refs/tags/resal... See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/SourceURL/ praiskup: we should release! [-]: 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. [!]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. # praiskup: no upstream signature [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. #praiskup built-in macros [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]: 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 ------- Checking: resalloc-ibm-cloud-1.0.0-1.fc40.noarch.rpm resalloc-ibm-cloud-1.0.0-1.fc40.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmponvkntps')] checks: 31, packages: 2 resalloc-ibm-cloud.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary resalloc-ibm-cloud-list-deleting-vms resalloc-ibm-cloud.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary resalloc-ibm-cloud-list-vms resalloc-ibm-cloud.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary resalloc-ibm-cloud-vm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 1 resalloc-ibm-cloud.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary resalloc-ibm-cloud-list-deleting-vms resalloc-ibm-cloud.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary resalloc-ibm-cloud-list-vms resalloc-ibm-cloud.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary resalloc-ibm-cloud-vm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Requires -------- resalloc-ibm-cloud (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.12dist(ibm-cloud-sdk-core) python3.12dist(ibm-vpc) Provides -------- resalloc-ibm-cloud: python3.12dist(resalloc-ibm-cloud) python3dist(resalloc-ibm-cloud) resalloc-ibm-cloud -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235343 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235343 --- Comment #7 from Jiří Kyjovský <jkyjovsk(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/fedora-copr/resalloc-ibm-cloud/main/res... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/praiskup/resalloc/fedo... -- 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=2235343 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235343 Jiří Kyjovský <jkyjovsk(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment|0 |updated --- Comment #0 has been edited --- spec and srpm downloadable from Copr repo Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/fedora-copr/resalloc-ibm-cloud/62b026e4... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/nikromen/fedora-pre-re... Description: Helper scripts for the Resalloc server (mostly used by Copr build system) for maintaining VMs in IBM Cloud (starting, stopping, cleaning orphans, etc.) Fedora Account System Username: nikromen -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235343

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235343 --- Comment #9 from Jiří Kyjovský <jkyjovsk(a)redhat.com&gt; --- [fedora-review-service-build] -- 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=2235343 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235343 Pavel Raiskup <praiskup(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #11 from Pavel Raiskup <praiskup(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Thank you. LGTM. 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. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. # praiskup: weird -> license file must be there... [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. [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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 8539 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: 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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0: https://github.com/fedora-copr/resalloc-ibm-cloud/archive/refs/tags/resal... See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/SourceURL/ # praiskup: jirka fixed later, and it is downloadable now [-]: 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. [-]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments # praiskup: fedora-review doesn't expand %url obviously [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. # praiskup no signatures [?]: 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. # praiskup: pyproject macros [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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: resalloc-ibm-cloud-1.0-1.fc40.noarch.rpm resalloc-ibm-cloud-1.0-1.fc40.src.rpm ==================================================================================================================================================== rpmlint session starts =================================================================================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpmbctlz9j')] checks: 31, packages: 2 ===================================================================================================================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.3 s ==================================================================================================================== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Requires -------- resalloc-ibm-cloud (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.12dist(ibm-cloud-sdk-core) python3.12dist(ibm-vpc) Provides -------- resalloc-ibm-cloud: python3.12dist(resalloc-ibm-cloud) python3dist(resalloc-ibm-cloud) resalloc-ibm-cloud Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2235343 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, R, fonts, Perl, C/C++, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Java, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235343 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235343 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2023-a3c95d4ea1 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-a3c95d4ea1 -- 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=2235343 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235343 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2023-a3c95d4ea1 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-a3c95d4ea1 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-a3c95d4ea1 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- 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=2235343 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235343 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2023-09-28 00:49:12 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2023-a3c95d4ea1 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235343 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...