[Bug 781831] Review Request: python-nova-adminclient - Nova administration Python API
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=781831 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|python-nova-adminclient-0.1 |python-nova-adminclient-0.1 |.8-2.fc16 |.8-2.el6 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-03 20:07:56 EST --- python-nova-adminclient-0.1.8-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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 781831] Review Request: python-nova-adminclient - Nova administration Python API
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=781831 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||python-nova-adminclient-0.1 ||.8-2.fc16 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2012-01-26 17:53:37 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-01-26 17:53:37 EST --- python-nova-adminclient-0.1.8-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 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 781831] Review Request: python-nova-adminclient - Nova administration Python API
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=781831 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-01-18 14:57:54 EST --- python-nova-adminclient-0.1.8-2.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 781831] Review Request: python-nova-adminclient - Nova administration Python API
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=781831 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-01-17 13:48:40 EST --- python-nova-adminclient-0.1.8-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-nova-adminclient-0.1.8-2.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 781831] Review Request: python-nova-adminclient - Nova administration Python API
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=781831 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-01-17 13:49:24 EST --- python-nova-adminclient-0.1.8-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-nova-adminclient-0.1.8-2.fc16 -- 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 781831] Review Request: python-nova-adminclient - Nova administration Python API
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=781831 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 781831] Review Request: python-nova-adminclient - Nova administration Python API
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=781831 --- Comment #6 from Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com 2012-01-16 16:38:43 EST --- Steve, I have updated the package to address your review comments. Thanks for the review! http://fedorapeople.org/~russellb/python-nova-adminclient/python-nova-adminclient.spec http://fedorapeople.org/~russellb/python-nova-adminclient/python-nova-adminclient-0.1.8-2.fc16.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 781831] Review Request: python-nova-adminclient - Nova administration Python API
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=781831 --- Comment #7 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com 2012-01-16 17:30:00 EST --- APPROVED. Russell, please submit a git request. -- 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 781831] Review Request: python-nova-adminclient - Nova administration Python API
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=781831 Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added 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 781831] Review Request: python-nova-adminclient - Nova administration Python API
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=781831 --- Comment #8 from Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com 2012-01-16 18:57:26 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-nova-adminclient Short Description: Client library for administering OpenStack Nova Owners: russellb Branches: f16 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 781831] Review Request: python-nova-adminclient - Nova administration Python API
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=781831 Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- 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 781831] Review Request: python-nova-adminclient - Nova administration Python API
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=781831 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-01-16 20:13:15 EST --- 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 781831] Review Request: python-nova-adminclient - Nova administration Python API
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=781831 Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sd...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sd...@redhat.com -- 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 781831] Review Request: python-nova-adminclient - Nova administration Python API
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=781831 --- Comment #1 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com 2012-01-15 12:31:14 EST --- Russell, I had originally intended to review your package, but you need a sponsor since your not part of the fedora packager group. I am not (yet) a sponsor. 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 781831] Review Request: python-nova-adminclient - Nova administration Python API
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=781831 Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|sd...@redhat.com|nob...@fedoraproject.org -- 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 781831] Review Request: python-nova-adminclient - Nova administration Python API
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=781831 Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sd...@redhat.com -- 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 781831] Review Request: python-nova-adminclient - Nova administration Python API
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=781831 --- Comment #2 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com 2012-01-15 12:38:36 EST --- Ignore comment #1. -- 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 781831] Review Request: python-nova-adminclient - Nova administration Python API
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=781831 Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- 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 781831] Review Request: python-nova-adminclient - Nova administration Python API
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=781831
--- Comment #3 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com 2012-01-15 12:58:44 EST ---
[PASS] 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]
[sdake@beast noarch]$ rpmlint python-nova-adminclient-0.1.8-1.fc16.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[sdake@beast noarch]$ rpmlint python-nova-adminclient*
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[PASS] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines .
[PASS] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
[PASS] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
[PASS] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines .
[PASS] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. [3]
[PASS] 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] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
[PASS] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
[PASS] 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.
[PASS] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms
on at least one primary architecture. [7]
[PASS] 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] 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.[9]
[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. [10]
[N/A] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
[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. [12]
[PASS] 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. [13]
[PASS] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)[14]
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. [15]
[PASS] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
[PASS] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
[N/A] 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). [18]
[N/A] 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. [18]
[N/A] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19]
[N/A] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20]
[N/A] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package. [19]
[N/A] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release} [21]
[N/A] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.[20]
[N/A] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section. If you feel
[Bug 781831] Review Request: python-nova-adminclient - Nova administration Python API
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=781831 --- Comment #4 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com 2012-01-15 13:04:30 EST --- Python review: From: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python To build a package containing python2 files, you need to have: BuildRequires: python2-devel [BLOCKER] python2-devel not a BR [BLOCKER] The python_sitelib definition is not needed - it is already defined by the build system. [PASS] Must: Python eggs must be built from source. They cannot simply drop an egg from upstream into the proper directory. (See prebuilt binaries Guidelines for details) [PASS] Must: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [N/A] Must: When building a compat package, it must install using easy_install -m so it won't conflict with the main package. [N/A] Must: When building multiple versions (for a compat package) one of the packages must contain a default version that is usable via import MODULE with no prior setup. [PASS] Should: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. -- 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 781831] Review Request: python-nova-adminclient - Nova administration Python API
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=781831 --- Comment #5 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com 2012-01-15 13:06:01 EST --- I would recommend making the %description section a little more verbose or at least terminating it with a period. -- 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
