[Bug 2370919] Review request: dnf-plugin-protected-kmods - DNF 3/4 plugin that prevents new kernels from being updated if a protected kmod won't work with it.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2370919



--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Dieter <jonathan@xxxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wright from comment #2)
> Package Review
> ...
> 1) The license field in the spec file is "MIT" while the GitHub repo/LICENSE
> file reflect Apache-2.0.  Which is it?

This is just embarrassing.  It's Apache-2.0.  Thanks for catching this!

> 2) Source0 URL is incorrect and should use the %{url} macro since it's just
> building on it.
> 
> - Source0:   
> https://github.com/ctrliq/%{name}/releases/download/v%{version}/%{name}-
> %{version}.tar.gz
> + Source0:    %{url}/releases/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

Fixed

> 3) More specifically declare directory in %files
> 
> - %{_sysconfdir}/dnf/plugins/protected-kmods.d/
> + %dir %{_sysconfdir}/dnf/plugins/protected-kmods.d/
> 
> This is better and more explicit in case the build places files unexpectedly
> in this directory, it would fail with an rpmbuild error.

Done

> 4) The output package name should be the standard
> python3-dnf-plugin-protected-kmods and then 'Provides' the simpler name for
> people to install.  This is how all other dnf plugin packages are handled.

Done.  I've also obsoleted the older name < %{version}-%{release} since we do
have it out in the wild (outside Fedora/EPEL)

> 5) Use more explicit paths in %files
> 
> - %{python3_sitelib}/dnf-plugins/*
> + %{python3_sitelib}/dnf-plugins/protected_kmods.py
> 
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_explicit_lists
> 
> This will resolve some other issues with it globbing directories that it
> shouldn't be cited above in the automated review.

I've fixed this, though I also had to bring in the pyc files for this plugin in
__pycache__

> 6) We don't have explicit guidelines for dnf4 packages so after consultation
> with a few FPC members I looked to dnf-plugins-core for inspiration in areas
> that weren't covered by general packaging guidelines.

Thanks again for reviewing this!

New links in the next comment.


-- 
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=2370919

Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202370919%23c3

-- 
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux