[Bug 713320] Review Request: oz - Library and utilities for automated guest OS installs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713320 --- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-07-25 23:26:35 EDT --- oz-0.5.0-2.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713320] Review Request: oz - Library and utilities for automated guest OS installs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713320 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||oz-0.5.0-2.fc15 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-07-25 23:26:42 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713320] Review Request: oz - Library and utilities for automated guest OS installs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713320 --- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-07-25 23:34:56 EDT --- oz-0.5.0-2.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713320] Review Request: oz - Library and utilities for automated guest OS installs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713320 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|oz-0.5.0-2.fc15 |oz-0.5.0-2.fc14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713320] Review Request: oz - Library and utilities for automated guest OS installs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713320 --- Comment #27 from Chris Lalancette clala...@redhat.com 2011-07-11 09:32:19 EDT --- Thanks Pádraig, I've taken ownership. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713320] Review Request: oz - Library and utilities for automated guest OS installs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713320 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-07-08 12:04:34 EDT --- oz-0.5.0-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713320] Review Request: oz - Library and utilities for automated guest OS installs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713320 --- Comment #25 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com 2011-07-08 12:42:56 EDT --- Padraig, Thanks for the packaging. Would you transfer package owner to clalance? He is ultimately responsible for controlling the commit/acl list since it is his upstream package. Thanks -steve -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713320] Review Request: oz - Library and utilities for automated guest OS installs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713320 --- Comment #26 from Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com 2011-07-08 17:59:26 EDT --- Chris I've removed myself as owner, so you should be able to take ownership at: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/oz -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713320] Review Request: oz - Library and utilities for automated guest OS installs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713320 --- Comment #20 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-07-07 06:10:27 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713320] Review Request: oz - Library and utilities for automated guest OS installs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713320 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713320] Review Request: oz - Library and utilities for automated guest OS installs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713320 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-07-07 07:24:18 EDT --- oz-0.5.0-2.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/oz-0.5.0-2.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713320] Review Request: oz - Library and utilities for automated guest OS installs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713320 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-07-07 07:44:10 EDT --- oz-0.5.0-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/oz-0.5.0-2.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713320] Review Request: oz - Library and utilities for automated guest OS installs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713320 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-07-07 07:51:31 EDT --- oz-0.5.0-2.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/oz-0.5.0-2.fc14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713320] Review Request: oz - Library and utilities for automated guest OS installs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713320
--- Comment #17 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com 2011-07-06 12:03:27 EDT ---
[ PASS ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. -
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3182672
[ PASS ] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures
[ PASS ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as
described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for
example.
I was able to use the koji package and boot different vms using pacemaker-cloud
which extensively exercises oz image creation:
pcloudsh# deployable_start dep1
Starting Deployable dep1
- Starting Assembly assy1
- Starting Assembly assy2
- Starting Assembly assy3
pcloudsh# Event: {'reason': 'All good', 'assembly': 'assy3', 'state':
'running', 'deployable': 'dep1'}
Event: {'reason': 'All good', 'assembly': 'assy1', 'state': 'running',
'deployable': 'dep1'}
Event: {'reason': 'All good', 'assembly': 'assy2', 'state': 'running',
'deployable': 'dep1'}
Event: {'reason': 'started OK', 'assembly': 'assy3', 'state': 'running',
'service': 'httpd', 'deployable': 'dep1'}
Event: {'reason': 'started OK', 'assembly': 'assy3', 'state': 'running',
'service': 'httpd', 'deployable': 'dep1'}
Event: {'reason': 'started OK', 'assembly': 'assy1', 'state': 'running',
'service': 'httpd', 'deployable': 'dep1'}
Event: {'reason': 'started OK', 'assembly': 'assy2', 'state': 'running',
'service': 'httpd', 'deployable': 'dep1'}
[ N/A ] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is
vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713320] Review Request: oz - Library and utilities for automated guest OS installs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713320 Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #18 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com 2011-07-06 12:14:21 EDT --- Package passes packaging guidelines. Applying fedora-review+. Thanks for packaging and continuing the rest of the submission process. Regards -steve -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713320] Review Request: oz - Library and utilities for automated guest OS installs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713320 Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #19 from Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com 2011-07-06 17:01:56 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: oz Short Description: Library and utilities for automated guest OS installs Owners: pbrady sdake clalance Branches: f14 f15 el5 el6 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713320] Review Request: oz - Library and utilities for automated guest OS installs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713320
Kaleb KEITHLEY kkeit...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kkeit...@redhat.com
--- Comment #13 from Kaleb KEITHLEY kkeit...@redhat.com 2011-07-05 09:59:03
EDT ---
(new) fedora guidelines say:
+ BuildRoot is unnecessary, just get rid of it
+ %defattr, ditto
+ %clean, ditto
[ OK ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package
[ OK ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines
[ OK ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [...]
[ OK ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
[ OK ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license
and meet the Licensing Guidelines
[ FAIL ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the
actual license
spec still says LGPL2, COPYING says LGPL2.1
[ OK ] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc
[ OK ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[ OK ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[ ] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for
this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package,
please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
[ OK ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary
rpms on at least one primary architecture
[ N/A ] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on
an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the
spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST
have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package
does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST
be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line
[ OK ] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except
for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging
Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply
common sense.
[ N/A ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by
using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly
forbidden
[ N/A ] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's
default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[ N/A ] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the
rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without
this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker.
[ OK ] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does
not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package
which does create that directory.
[ OK ] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
[ OK ] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should
be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section
must include a %defattr(...) line.
[ OK ] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[ FAIL ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. - clalance: minor,
but Source0 can be changed to use %{name}-%{version}.
[ OK ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[ OK ] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but
is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or
quantity).
[ OK ] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the
program must run properly if it is not present.
[ N/A ] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[ N/A ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[ N/A ] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires:
pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability).
[ N/A ] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in
[Bug 713320] Review Request: oz - Library and utilities for automated guest OS installs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713320
--- Comment #14 from Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com 2011-07-05 10:41:41
EDT ---
Updated srpm for review:
Spec URL: http://www.pixelbeat.org/patches/oz.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.pixelbeat.org/patches/oz-0.5.0-2.fc15.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #13)
(new) fedora guidelines say:
+ BuildRoot is unnecessary, just get rid of it
+ %defattr, ditto
+ %clean, ditto
Done
[ FAIL ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the
actual license
spec still says LGPL2, COPYING says LGPL2.1
I responded to this previously.
It seems that these 2 are synonymous.
If I use 2.1 in the spec, rpmlint will complain.
See: http://www.redhat.com/a-packaging/2008-November/msg00047.html
and: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing
(if you search for LGPLv2 there, you see that it covers both LGPLv2 and
LGPLv2.1)
[ OK ] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
Note that conflicts with the request to remove %clean (which I've done)
[ FAIL ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. - clalance: minor,
but Source0 can be changed to use %{name}-%{version}.
%{name}/%{version} now used.
thanks!
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713320] Review Request: oz - Library and utilities for automated guest OS installs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713320
--- Comment #15 from Kaleb KEITHLEY kkeit...@redhat.com 2011-07-05 10:56:22
EDT ---
[ OK ] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
Note that conflicts with the request to remove %clean (which I've done)
My bad, I missed that and did not remove it. Ignore it.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713320] Review Request: oz - Library and utilities for automated guest OS installs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713320 --- Comment #16 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com 2011-07-05 11:55:39 EDT --- I'll validate the remaining SHOULDs by EOD today. [ ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. - [ ] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures [ ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. [ ] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. thanks for the re-review Kaleb of the new upstream release. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713320] Review Request: oz - Library and utilities for automated guest OS installs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713320 --- Comment #12 from Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com 2011-07-02 05:28:55 EDT --- Updated srpm for review: Spec URL: http://www.pixelbeat.org/patches/oz.spec SRPM URL: http://www.pixelbeat.org/patches/oz-0.5.0-1.fc15.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713320] Review Request: oz - Library and utilities for automated guest OS installs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713320 --- Comment #10 from Chris Lalancette clala...@redhat.com 2011-06-30 18:53:09 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) Yes I understand the tarball must be public and unchanging. The process I use personally for one project is: http://www.pixelbeat.org/docs/linux_project_release_process/ So I've sent the rpmlint fixes upstream. Assuming they're merged the next step is to wait for the oz-0.5.0.tar.gz If there is a particular need to release an oz package to fedora in the meantime, I'll patch against oz-0.4.0.tar.gz thanks! Hey Pádraig, Steve, I did the 0.5.0 release of Oz today, with the noarch patches. So we should be good to package that up as a noarch for Fedora-16. Thanks, Chris Lalancette -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713320] Review Request: oz - Library and utilities for automated guest OS installs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713320 --- Comment #11 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com 2011-07-01 00:15:55 EDT --- Yup, When Pádraig submits a new rpm I'll review. Regards -steve -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713320] Review Request: oz - Library and utilities for automated guest OS installs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713320 Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sd...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713320] Review Request: oz - Library and utilities for automated guest OS installs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713320 Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #1 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com 2011-06-15 08:25:09 EDT --- oz seems to make sense from a project name perspective. Maybe Chris has a different viewpoint. I will provide review of this package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713320] Review Request: oz - Library and utilities for automated guest OS installs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713320
--- Comment #2 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com 2011-06-15 09:28:45 EDT ---
MUST review:
MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1]
FAIL: there are a few problems in the rpmlint results. This is a BLOCKER.
the source rpm
[sdake@beast Downloads]$ rpmlint oz*src.rpm
oz.src: W: non-standard-group Development
oz.src: W: invalid-url Source0: oz-0.4.0.tar.gz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
the rpm:
[sdake@beast noarch]$ rpmlint oz*
oz.noarch: W: non-standard-group Development
oz.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/oz/guesttools/icicle-nc 0644L /bin/bash
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
1. Source0 should be a full url. I recommend:
I recommend:
Source0:
http://repos.fedorahosted.org/repos/aeolus/oz/0.4.0/tarball/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
2. Group should either be Development Tools or Development Libraries.
3. icicle-nc should have its permissions set to 755.
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
PASS: the package is named according to package naming guidelines.
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
PASS: The spec file name matches the base package name.
MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
PASS: package meets packaging guidelines.
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
PASS: The package is licensed under lgplv2.1 which is an approved license.
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
[3]
FAIL: The COPYING file and header files indicate the code is licensed under
lgplv2.1, however, spec file indicates code licensed under lgplv2
MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.[4]
PASS: package contains a license file and that license file in %do section
MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
PASS: spec file written in English
MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
PASS: spec file is very legible
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
The source0 package should be the upstream package location including url.
upstream package:
from SRC RPM:
FAIL - md5sums do not match this is a BLOCKER
[sdake@beast Downloads]$ md5sum oz-0.4.0.tar.gz
cd1639af62509c677c95d94705042772 oz-0.4.0.tar.gz
md5sum [sdake@beast SOURCES]$ md5sum oz-0.4.0.tar.gz
d2f774e97ca5ac0c34b9f07b6ea1bd01 oz-0.4.0.tar.gz
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture. [7]
PASS - I personally built on x86_64
MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8]
PASS - this is a noarch python package
MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
PASS - I built on clean cloned f15 VM that are expected in the build root. I
then installed python (build requires) and package builds properly.
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
PASS - no locale functionality is included upstream.
MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]
PASS - this package is python only (noarch) and does not have shared objects
MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
PASS - no system libraries are bundled by package.
MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker. [12]
PASS - no request for relocate functionality.
[Bug 713320] Review Request: oz - Library and utilities for automated guest OS installs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713320
--- Comment #3 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com 2011-06-15 09:33:10 EDT ---
Summary of MUST review blockers:
MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1]
FAIL: there are a few problems in the rpmlint results. This is a BLOCKER.
the source rpm
[sdake@beast Downloads]$ rpmlint oz*src.rpm
oz.src: W: non-standard-group Development
oz.src: W: invalid-url Source0: oz-0.4.0.tar.gz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
the rpm:
[sdake@beast noarch]$ rpmlint oz*
oz.noarch: W: non-standard-group Development
oz.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/oz/guesttools/icicle-nc 0644L /bin/bash
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
1. Source0 should be a full url. I recommend:
I recommend:
Source0:
http://repos.fedorahosted.org/repos/aeolus/oz/0.4.0/tarball/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
2. Group should either be Development Tools or Development Libraries.
3. icicle-nc should have its permissions set to 755.MUST: rpmlint must be run
on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1]
FAIL: there are a few problems in the rpmlint results. This is a BLOCKER.
the source rpm
[sdake@beast Downloads]$ rpmlint oz*src.rpm
oz.src: W: non-standard-group Development
oz.src: W: invalid-url Source0: oz-0.4.0.tar.gz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
the rpm:
[sdake@beast noarch]$ rpmlint oz*
oz.noarch: W: non-standard-group Development
oz.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/oz/guesttools/icicle-nc 0644L /bin/bash
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
1. Source0 should be a full url. I recommend:
I recommend:
Source0:
http://repos.fedorahosted.org/repos/aeolus/oz/0.4.0/tarball/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
2. Group should either be Development Tools or Development Libraries.
3. icicle-nc should have its permissions set to 755.
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
[3]
FAIL: The COPYING file and header files indicate the code is licensed under
lgplv2.1, however, spec file indicates code licensed under lgplv2
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
The source0 package should be the upstream package location including url.
upstream package:
from SRC RPM:
FAIL - md5sums do not match this is a BLOCKER
[sdake@beast Downloads]$ md5sum oz-0.4.0.tar.gz
cd1639af62509c677c95d94705042772 oz-0.4.0.tar.gz
md5sum [sdake@beast SOURCES]$ md5sum oz-0.4.0.tar.gz
d2f774e97ca5ac0c34b9f07b6ea1bd01 oz-0.4.0.tar.gz
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. [15]
FAIL - icicle-nc is not set with execute permissions - THIS IS A BLOCKER
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713320] Review Request: oz - Library and utilities for automated guest OS installs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713320 --- Comment #4 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com 2011-06-15 09:36:52 EDT --- Pádraig, Please resolve the failing MUST review items in comment #3. The differing md5sums are particularly troubling. If you have made changes to the source tree, I'd recommend requesting upstream to release a new tarball. Further review is blocked until MUST items are resolved. Regards -steve -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713320] Review Request: oz - Library and utilities for automated guest OS installs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713320 --- Comment #5 from Chris Lalancette clala...@redhat.com 2011-06-15 09:38:19 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) oz seems to make sense from a project name perspective. Maybe Chris has a different viewpoint. I will provide review of this package. Yeah, I would go with oz as the package name. Although this is part of the aeolus project, my feeling is that oz has use outside of the project. Pádraig, once you fix the issues that Steve found, I would appreciate patches to the .spec file upstream. At least then we can keep it mostly in-sync with what is in Fedora. Thanks, Chris Lalancette -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713320] Review Request: oz - Library and utilities for automated guest OS installs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713320 --- Comment #6 from Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com 2011-06-15 11:04:19 EDT --- The md5sum discrepancies are because there is no usable (noarch) upstream tarball yet. I wanted to clarify things before asking chris to release (0.4.1). Note I'll be using ...fedorapeople... rather than ...fedorahosted... for the URL, as the latter doesn't seem to exist at the moment. Patch to aeolus-devel coming up... thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713320] Review Request: oz - Library and utilities for automated guest OS installs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713320 --- Comment #7 from Chris Lalancette clala...@redhat.com 2011-06-15 11:31:10 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) The md5sum discrepancies are because there is no usable (noarch) upstream tarball yet. I wanted to clarify things before asking chris to release (0.4.1). Note I'll be using ...fedorapeople... rather than ...fedorahosted... for the URL, as the latter doesn't seem to exist at the moment. Patch to aeolus-devel coming up... thanks! Hm. I might suggest that you just use the 0.4.0 release directly (i.e. the arch-specific one). Yes, it sucks a bit that it is arch-specific, but when I release 0.5.0, we can then upgrade to that and move it to noarch[1]. Another option is to use the 0.4.0 release tarball, but put the noarch patch in as a specfile patch on top of that. It makes me a bit nervous, though; that is a big change, and I haven't yet run that patch through my full functional tests. Chris Lalancette [1] Given the number of fixes that are coming into oz lately, it looks like I'll probably do a 0.5.0 bugfix release sooner rather than later. So it may not be all that long. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713320] Review Request: oz - Library and utilities for automated guest OS installs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713320 --- Comment #8 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com 2011-06-15 12:06:46 EDT --- yup fedorapeople is the current url that comes up with you click download. mistype on my part. thanks for catching ! In reply to comment #6, an RPM source tarball must be pristine matching exactly what upstream releases. Many automated tools use the upstream source tarball for their internal consistency and security checks. Patches on top of that that are distro specific but not merged upstream are allowed (but highly discouraged and usually limited in scope to things like init scripts etc). Patches on top of a source tarball as separate patch# lines that are merged into the declared upstream repo are fine (this was chris's second option). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713320] Review Request: oz - Library and utilities for automated guest OS installs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713320 --- Comment #9 from Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com 2011-06-15 12:38:43 EDT --- Yes I understand the tarball must be public and unchanging. The process I use personally for one project is: http://www.pixelbeat.org/docs/linux_project_release_process/ So I've sent the rpmlint fixes upstream. Assuming they're merged the next step is to wait for the oz-0.5.0.tar.gz If there is a particular need to release an oz package to fedora in the meantime, I'll patch against oz-0.4.0.tar.gz thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
