[Bug 882704] Review Request: otopi - oVirt Task Oriented Pluggable Installer/Implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882704 Alon Bar-Lev alo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |DEFERRED Last Closed||2014-01-27 09:17:44 --- Comment #35 from Alon Bar-Lev alo...@redhat.com --- Thank you for your review, it does not seems that ovirt-engine is progressing into inclusion in fedora so for now there is no reason to include this package as well. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882704] Review Request: otopi - oVirt Task Oriented Pluggable Installer/Implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882704
Alon Bar-Lev alo...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|package-review@lists.fedora |
|project.org |
--- Comment #12 from Alon Bar-Lev alo...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #11)
(In reply to Alon Bar-Lev from comment #10)
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #9)
ping Alon for new spec and srpm.
spec is always available upstream[1], tarball is always avaible[2], also you
can find srpm at upstream repo[3].
This is not how Fedora works. I conclude, you are not interested in
submitting this package to Fedora, so this review request can be closed?
I pointed to these artifacts exactly as requested, not sure how it is not whow
fedora works.
Let's try again.
spec[1], srpm[2].
fedora-review:
---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: Missing: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} in otopi-java,
otopi-devel
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RequiringBasePackage
### FALSE POSITIVE? ###
= 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]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in otopi-java
, otopi-javadoc , otopi-devel
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
LGPL (v2.1 or later). Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/user1/otopi/licensecheck.txt
[?]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 6 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[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 %doc.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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
[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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Java:
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is
pulled in by maven-local
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
[Bug 882704] Review Request: otopi - oVirt Task Oriented Pluggable Installer/Implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882704 --- Comment #9 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- ping Alon for new spec and srpm. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=voVXSPtHY9a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882704] Review Request: otopi - oVirt Task Oriented Pluggable Installer/Implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882704 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||alo...@redhat.com Flags|needinfo?(dougsland@redhat. |needinfo?(alo...@redhat.com |com)|) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=LtBX3waTzpa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882704] Review Request: otopi - oVirt Task Oriented Pluggable Installer/Implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882704 Alon Bar-Lev alo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(alo...@redhat.com | |) | --- Comment #10 from Alon Bar-Lev alo...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #9) ping Alon for new spec and srpm. Hi, spec is always available upstream[1], tarball is always avaible[2], also you can find srpm at upstream repo[3]. However, as ovirt-engine is not going to be included in fedora any time soon, it is not essential that otopi/ovirt-host-deploy will. But I will still appreciate a review! Thanks! [1] http://gerrit.ovirt.org/gitweb?p=otopi.git;a=blob;f=otopi.spec.in;hb=HEAD [2] http://resources.ovirt.org/releases/nightly/src/ [3] http://resources.ovirt.org/releases/nightly/rpm/Fedora/19/SRPMS/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Wgz6LehAGna=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882704] Review Request: otopi - oVirt Task Oriented Pluggable Installer/Implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882704 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rc040...@freenet.de --- Comment #11 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de --- (In reply to Alon Bar-Lev from comment #10) (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #9) ping Alon for new spec and srpm. spec is always available upstream[1], tarball is always avaible[2], also you can find srpm at upstream repo[3]. This is not how Fedora works. I conclude, you are not interested in submitting this package to Fedora, so this review request can be closed? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=AavKPki6yea=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882704] Review Request: otopi - oVirt Task Oriented Pluggable Installer/Implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882704 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cicku...@gmail.com Flags||needinfo?(dougsland@redhat. ||com) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=3adgZhewH2a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882704] Review Request: otopi - oVirt Task Oriented Pluggable Installer/Implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882704 Douglas Schilling Landgraf dougsl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=xagPvGZdLca=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882704] Review Request: otopi - oVirt Task Oriented Pluggable Installer/Implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882704 --- Comment #8 from Alon Bar-Lev alo...@redhat.com --- Hello Douglas, spec file is at upstream[1]. I will be happy if you can send patches to whatever you think that should be improved. Thanks, Alon [1] http://gerrit.ovirt.org/gitweb?p=otopi.git;a=blob;f=otopi.spec.in;hb=HEAD -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=h15w6Pgxa0a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882704] Review Request: otopi - oVirt Task Oriented Pluggable Installer/Implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882704 --- Comment #7 from Douglas Schilling Landgraf dougsl...@redhat.com --- Hi Alon, As you noticed, I have just jumped into this bugzilla and looks like it's out of date. 1) Cannot find the spec. $ wget https://github.com/downloads/alonbl/otopi/otopi.spec HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 404 Not Found 2013-06-11 20:02:18 ERROR 404: Not Found 2) I am pretty sure otopi 1.0.0 is not beta anymore :) otopi-1.0.0_beta.tar.gz BTW, to get sponsored you need to do an informal package review [1]. Basically, you can pick up a random bugzilla that is requesting a package review and push your comments there (don't need to assign it) and share the link here. To help you in this task, I can suggest: - FedoraReview - Fedora Hosted https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/ - Package Review Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines - Package Review Guidelines for Java http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java - Package Review Guidelines for Python http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group Please let me know if you have any question. Thanks Douglas -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=J6ewcDkXuGa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882704] Review Request: otopi - oVirt Task Oriented Pluggable Installer/Implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882704 Douglas Schilling Landgraf dougsl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Uv9ygeLkJWa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882704] Review Request: otopi - oVirt Task Oriented Pluggable Installer/Implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882704 Douglas Schilling Landgraf dougsl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dougsl...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=DDFZ0mB7oea=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882704] Review Request: otopi - oVirt Task Oriented Pluggable Installer/Implementation
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882704 --- Comment #5 from Alon Bar-Lev alo...@redhat.com --- beta is available[1]. we can progress. what is the next stage? [1] http://resources.ovirt.org/releases/3.2/src/otopi-1.0.0_beta.tar.gz -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=yEYNdjj0l4a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882704] Review Request: otopi - oVirt Task Oriented Pluggable Installer/Implementation
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882704 --- Comment #6 from Alon Bar-Lev alo...@redhat.com --- koji build is available[1] with embedded spec file. [1] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4869012 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=IbIJ3Gafvga=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882704] Review Request: otopi - oVirt Task Oriented Pluggable Installer/Implementation
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882704 --- Comment #3 from Ofer Schreiber oschr...@redhat.com --- Two small issues: 1. The upstream source is missing 2. According to the packaging guidelines : If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. since you're the upstream maintainer, I guess including the LICENSE should be easy -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=lvmaLUT2Z1a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882704] Review Request: otopi - oVirt Task Oriented Pluggable Installer/Implementation
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882704 --- Comment #4 from Alon Bar-Lev alo...@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #3) Two small issues: 1. The upstream source is missing I waited for the review to be complete, before tagging. 2. According to the packaging guidelines : If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. since you're the upstream maintainer, I guess including the LICENSE should be easy COPYING is available. Thank you for review! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=wU2ZI6618Ra=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882704] Review Request: otopi - oVirt Task Oriented Pluggable Installer/Implementation
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882704 --- Comment #1 from Alon Bar-Lev alo...@redhat.com --- This is my first package and I need sponsor. I am the upstream maintainer. Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4749118 -- 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 882704] Review Request: otopi - oVirt Task Oriented Pluggable Installer/Implementation
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882704
--- Comment #2 from Alon Bar-Lev alo...@redhat.com ---
Attach the report and my notes '--', I hope I got this correctly.
This is a pre-release, however, I would like to know that all OK.
Thanks!
---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
[!]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java
-- This is false positive, we only need jpackage-utils for the java
subpackage.
[!]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#add_maven_depmap_macro
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: Missing: 'Requires: %%{name} =' in: %package devel
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RequiringBasePackage
-- This is false positive as the devel package depends on the java package
which depends on the base package correctly.
= 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.
-- LGPLv2.1+
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[?]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in %package
javadoc, %package devel
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[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 %doc.
-- This is false positive as the devel package depends on the java package
which depends on the base package correctly.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
LGPL (v2.1 or later). 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/test1/review-otopi/licensecheck.txt
-- False positive.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
-- Except for the javadoc subpackage.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 6 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Java:
[!]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
-- This is false positive, we only need jpackage-utils for the java
subpackage.
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: Missing: 'Requires: %%{name} ='
[Bug 882704] Review Request: otopi - oVirt Task Oriented Pluggable Installer/Implementation
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882704 Alon Bar-Lev alo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||882711 -- 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 882704] Review Request: otopi - oVirt Task Oriented Pluggable Installer/Implementation
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882704 Alon Bar-Lev alo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- 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
