[Bug 864535] Review Request: libvirt-designer - Libvirt configuration designer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864535 Michal Privoznik mpriv...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-11-07 09:32:50 -- 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 864535] Review Request: libvirt-designer - Libvirt configuration designer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864535 Michal Privoznik mpriv...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- 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 864535] Review Request: libvirt-designer - Libvirt configuration designer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864535 --- Comment #10 from Michal Privoznik mpriv...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libvirt-designer Short Description: Libvirt configuration designer Owners: mprivozn berrange Branches: f18 InitialCC: berrange -- 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 864535] Review Request: libvirt-designer - Libvirt configuration designer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864535 --- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 864535] Review Request: libvirt-designer - Libvirt configuration designer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864535
Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com ---
LEGEND: X=Met, !=Not met, ?=Not a blocker but should be fixed
=
[X] 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]
mcpierce@mcpierce-laptop:review $ rpmlint *rpm
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[X] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines .
[X] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
[X] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
[X] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines .
[X] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. [3]
[X] 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]
[X] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
[X] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
[X] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this
task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream
URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for
how to deal with this.
[X] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture. [7]
Since this is only for F18+, be sure when it finally is approved to only
request F18+ git modules.
[X] 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.
[X] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
[X] 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]
[X] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
[X] 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]
[X] 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]
[X] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be
set with executable permissions, for example. [15]
[X] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
[X] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
[X] 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]
[X] 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]
[X] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.[19]
[X] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with
any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you
feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another
package owns, then please present that at package review time. [23]
[X] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [24]
PACKAGE APPROVED.
--
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 864535] Review Request: libvirt-designer - Libvirt configuration designer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864535
--- Comment #6 from Michal Privoznik mpriv...@redhat.com ---
Darryl,
I've updated the package to reflect your findings. However, In [23] I don't
think /usr/lib{64}/libvirt-designer-1.0.so is provided by any other package but
-devel.
The new set of URLs has prefix
http://fedorapeople.org/~mprivozn/libvirt-designer/2/ that's:
SPEC file:
http://fedorapeople.org/~mprivozn/libvirt-designer/2/libvirt-designer.spec
SRPM:
http://fedorapeople.org/~mprivozn/libvirt-designer/2/libvirt-designer-0.0.1-1.fc19.src.rpm
--
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 864535] Review Request: libvirt-designer - Libvirt configuration designer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864535 --- Comment #8 from Michal Privoznik mpriv...@redhat.com --- Okay, another try: SPEC: http://fedorapeople.org/~mprivozn/libvirt-designer/3/libvirt-designer.spec SRPM: http://fedorapeople.org/~mprivozn/libvirt-designer/3/libvirt-designer-0.0.1-3.fc19.src.rpm BaseURL: http://fedorapeople.org/~mprivozn/libvirt-designer/3/ -- 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 864535] Review Request: libvirt-designer - Libvirt configuration designer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864535 Michal Privoznik mpriv...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(mprivozn@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #5 from Michal Privoznik mpriv...@redhat.com --- Yes, I maintain libvirt-snmp. -- 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 864535] Review Request: libvirt-designer - Libvirt configuration designer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864535 Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(mprivozn@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #4 from Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com --- I think before I continue with this review (since I'm not a sponsor yet) I need to ask if you're already an approved package maintainer; i.e., are you already maintaining a package in Fedora? -- 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 864535] Review Request: libvirt-designer - Libvirt configuration designer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864535 Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||dpie...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dpie...@redhat.com -- 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 864535] Review Request: libvirt-designer - Libvirt configuration designer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864535
--- Comment #1 from Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com ---
The package fails to build on koji using the SRPM provided:
DEBUG util.py:257: libvirt-designerwarning: user zippy does not
exist - using root
DEBUG util.py:257: warning: group zippy does not exist - using root
DEBUG util.py:257: ##
DEBUG util.py:257: warning: user zippy does not exist - using root
DEBUG util.py:257: warning: group zippy does not exist - using root
DEBUG util.py:347: Child return code was: 0
DEBUG backend.py:860: ['/usr/bin/yum-builddep', '--installroot',
'/var/lib/mock/f17-build-1477939-245982/root/',
'/var/lib/mock/f17-build-1477939-245982/root///builddir/build/SRPMS/libvirt-designer-0.0.1-1.fc17.src.rpm']
DEBUG util.py:307: Executing command: ['/usr/bin/yum-builddep',
'--installroot', '/var/lib/mock/f17-build-1477939-245982/root/',
'/var/lib/mock/f17-build-1477939-245982/root///builddir/build/SRPMS/libvirt-designer-0.0.1-1.fc17.src.rpm']
with env {'LANG': 'en_US.UTF-8', 'TERM': 'vt100', 'SHELL': '/bin/bash',
'HOSTNAME': 'mock', 'PROMPT_COMMAND': 'echo -n mock-chroot', 'HOME':
'/builddir', 'PATH': '/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin'}
DEBUG util.py:257: Getting requirements for libvirt-designer-0.0.1-1.fc17.src
DEBUG util.py:257: Error: No Package found for libvirt-gconfig-devel = 0.0.9
F17 only has libvirt-gconfig-devel 0.0.8. Is this package only for F18 and
later?
--
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 864535] Review Request: libvirt-designer - Libvirt configuration designer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864535 Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(mprivozn@redhat.c ||om) -- 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 864535] Review Request: libvirt-designer - Libvirt configuration designer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864535 Michal Privoznik mpriv...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(mprivozn@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #2 from Michal Privoznik mpriv...@redhat.com --- Yeah. This package is only for F18 and rawhide. Not only because the libvirt-gconfig dependency as you've pointed out, but the whole libvirt-glib. It uses APIs that were added in libvirt-glib-1.3.0 release (libvirt-gobject in particular). -- 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 864535] Review Request: libvirt-designer - Libvirt configuration designer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864535
--- Comment #3 from Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Yeah. This package is only for F18 and rawhide. Not only because the
libvirt-gconfig dependency as you've pointed out, but the whole
libvirt-glib. It uses APIs that were added in libvirt-glib-1.3.0 release
(libvirt-gobject in particular).
Okay, thanks for the quick response. A few very important points below:
LEGEND: X=Met, !=Not met, ?=Not a blocker but should be fixed
=
[X] 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]
mcpierce@mcpierce-laptop:review $ rpmlint *rpm
libvirt-designer.src: W: file-size-mismatch libvirt-designer-0.0.1.tar.gz =
410005, http://libvirt.org/sources/designer/libvirt-designer-0.0.1.tar.gz =
418435
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
[X] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines .
[X] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
[!] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
The changelog lists Dan Berrange as the packager, but the package review is
from Michal Privoznik. The changelog should name the packager.
[X] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines .
[X] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. [3]
[X] 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]
[X] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
[X] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
[!] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this
task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream
URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for
how to deal with this.
The source file in the SRPM does not match the upstream source:
mcpierce@mcpierce-laptop:temp $ ll libvirt-designer*tar*
-rw-rw-r--. 1 mcpierce mcpierce 410005 Oct 9 14:12
libvirt-designer-0.0.1.tar.gz
-rw-rw-r--. 1 mcpierce mcpierce 418435 Oct 9 06:28
libvirt-designer-0.0.1.tar.gz-downloaded
mcpierce@mcpierce-laptop:temp $ md5sum libvirt-designer-0.0.1.tar.gz
libvirt-designer-0.0.1.tar.gz-downloaded
d26c5a4f148ba37ccbd1d95577cb97a7 libvirt-designer-0.0.1.tar.gz
634b50ad539ab6b5c0188644780578d3 libvirt-designer-0.0.1.tar.gz-downloaded
sy
[X] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture. [7]
Since this is only for F18+, be sure when it finally is approved to only
request F18+ git modules.
[X] 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.
[X] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
[X] 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]
[X] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
[X] 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]
[X] 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]
[X] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be
set with executable permissions, for example. [15]
[X] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
[X] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
[?] 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]
There are documentation files in the -devel package. Maybe consider putting
them into a -devel-doc package.
[X] 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]
[X] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.[19]
[!] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already
