https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663668

Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com

--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - The configuration file %{_sysconfdir}/k2hr3/k2hr3-osnl.conf should be inrtalled with %config(noreplace)

%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/k2hr3/k2hr3-osnl.conf

- The last %changelog entry is not matching the Version-Release in the header, it should be 0.0.14-1

- The package can't build:

DEBUG util.py:490: BUILDSTDERR: Error: DEBUG util.py:490: BUILDSTDERR: Problem: package python3-oslo-messaging-8.0.0-1.fc29.noarch requires python3-pika_pool, but none of the providers can be installed DEBUG util.py:490: BUILDSTDERR: - conflicting requests DEBUG util.py:490: BUILDSTDERR: - nothing provides python3.7dist(pika) < 0.11 needed by python3-pika-pool-0.1.3-14.fc30.noarch

You should ask the maintainer of pika-pool to relax the dependency on pika (which is constrained to pika < 0.11 while the rawhide version is 0.12)

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663668

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl 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=1663668

--- Comment #4 from Hirotaka Wakabayashi hiwkby@yahoo.com --- Hello Robert and Zbigniew,

I have fixed the problems other than the python3-pika-pool dependency problem. I will ask the maintainer of pika-pool to relax the dependency on pika tomorrow. Here is the fixed spec file and source rpm package. Please review it again.

Spec URL: https://hiwkby.fedorapeople.org/python-k2hr3-osnl.spec SRPM URL: https://hiwkby.fedorapeople.org/python-k2hr3-osnl-0.9.1-1.fc29.src.rpm Koji scratch build URL: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33630951 Local rpmlit result: ``` $ rpmlint python-k2hr3-osnl.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint /home/vagrant/rpmbuild/SRPMS/python-k2hr3-osnl-0.9.1-1.fc29.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint /home/vagrant/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/python3-k2hr3-osnl-0.9.1-1.fc29.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. ```

Thanks in advance, Hirotaka Wakabayashi

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663668

--- Comment #6 from Hirotaka Wakabayashi hiwkby@yahoo.com --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1)

• The configuration file %{_sysconfdir}/k2hr3/k2hr3-osnl.conf should be

inrtalled with %config(noreplace)

%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/k2hr3/k2hr3-osnl.conf

• The last %changelog entry is not matching the Version-Release in the

header, it should be 0.0.14-1

• The package can't build:

DEBUG util.py:490: BUILDSTDERR: Error: DEBUG util.py:490: BUILDSTDERR: Problem: package python3-oslo-messaging-8.0.0-1.fc29.noarch requires python3-pika_pool, but none of the providers can be installed DEBUG util.py:490: BUILDSTDERR: - conflicting requests DEBUG util.py:490: BUILDSTDERR: - nothing provides python3.7dist(pika) < 0.11 needed by python3-pika-pool-0.1.3-14.fc30.noarch

You should ask the maintainer of pika-pool to relax the dependency on pika (which is constrained to pika < 0.11 while the rawhide version is 0.12)

Hello Robert,

Could you confirm the same problem still happens? Because the packager of pika-pool seems to fixed the problem 21 days ago [1] and python3-pika was removed from the python3-oslo-messaging's dependency and python3-pika-pool was also removed from python3-oslo-messaging's build dependency in python3-oslo-messaging-8.1.2 [2].

I confirmed that I could successfully build my package on Fedora30 nightly build(Fedora-30-20190316.n.1) in my environment [3].

Thanks in advance, Hirotaka Wakabayashi

-- [1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pika-pool/c/8b7c12d4f9ad67b7b8a676... [2] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-oslo-messaging/c/0bee85748423bc055... [3] This is my environment provisioning. https://hiwkby.fedorapeople.org/Vagrantfile_python-k2hr3-osnl

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663668

Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+

--- Comment #8 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Package approved.

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. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 53 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-k2hr3-osnl/review- python-k2hr3-osnl/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [%]: 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]: 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]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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. [-]: 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: [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.

Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-k2hr3-osnl-0.9.2-1.fc31.noarch.rpm python-k2hr3-osnl-0.9.2-1.fc31.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663668

--- Comment #10 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-k2hr3-osnl

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663668

Hirotaka Wakabayashi hiwkby@yahoo.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(hiwkby@yahoo.com) |

--- Comment #12 from Hirotaka Wakabayashi hiwkby@yahoo.com --- Hello Mattia, Thank you for your notice. Yes, I will import the content soon.

Hirotaka Wakabayashi

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663668

Mattia Verga mattia.verga@proton.me changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |1991145, 1992629, 2009155

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1991145 [Bug 1991145] Review Request: python-oslo-service - Oslo service library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1992629 [Bug 1992629] Review Request: python-oslo-middleware - OpenStack Oslo Middleware library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2009155 [Bug 2009155] Review Request: python-oslo-messaging - OpenStack common messaging library