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=731966 Mark McLoughlin <markmc(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |707199 -- 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.

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=731966 Steven Dake <sdake(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |sdake(a)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.

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=731966 --- Comment #2 from Steven Dake <sdake(a)redhat.com&gt; 2011-08-21 13:47:01 EDT --- Mark, I'll provide a complete review for you below. [FAIL] rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review. [root@beast SRPMS]# rpmlint openstack-glance-2011.3-0.1.987bzr.fc15.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [root@beast noarch]# rpmlint openstack-glance-doc-2011.3-0.1.987bzr.fc15.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [root@beast noarch]# rpmlint python-glance-2011.3-0.1.987bzr.fc15.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [root@beast noarch]# rpmlint openstack-glance-2011.3-0.1.987bzr.fc15.noarch.rpm openstack-glance.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/log/glance glance openstack-glance.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/run/glance glance openstack-glance.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/glance glance openstack-glance.noarch: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/glance openstack-glance.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary glance-scrubber openstack-glance.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary glance-cache-pruner openstack-glance.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary glance-registry openstack-glance.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary glance-manage openstack-glance.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary glance-cache-prefetcher openstack-glance.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary glance-upload openstack-glance.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary glance-control openstack-glance.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary glance-api openstack-glance.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary glance-cache-reaper openstack-glance.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary glance openstack-glance.noarch: W: missing-lsb-keyword Provides in /etc/rc.d/init.d/openstack-glance-registry openstack-glance.noarch: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/openstack-glance-registry $prog openstack-glance.noarch: W: missing-lsb-keyword Provides in /etc/rc.d/init.d/openstack-glance-api openstack-glance.noarch: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/openstack-glance-api $prog 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 18 warnings. (BLOCKER) Steve Traylen recommends that the package be ported to systemd. This is not currently required by Fedora or reviewers to enforce this activity. The init scripts are not LSB complaint resulting in many errors. Before this package can be approved, either the init scripts must be made lsb compliant, or the package should adopt systemd. Note systemd may become mandatory in future versions of Fedora, and packaging today may save you work tomorrow. If you need technical help, try contactng Angus Salkeld - he just did some systemd work for a few other projects we maintain. NEEDSWORK -> After this package achieves fedora-review-+ please file a bugzilla to have the package maintainer work with upstream to create man pages for the missing man pages for binaries. ]PASS] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . [PASS] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [PASS] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . [PASS] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . [PASS] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [PASS] 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. NEEDSWORK -> After fedora-review-+, please file a bug with upstream requesting the upstream to release a license file in the software distribution. Once that license file is distributed in the binary, please modify the spec file to distribute this binary. This is standard practice for open source projects. [PASS] The spec file must be written in American English. [5] [PASS] The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6] NEEDSWORK -> I'd recommend removing the %{shortname} macro and replacing it with glance. It makes reading the spec file confusing, and someone will end up doing this in the future anyway. [PASS]: 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. NEEDSWORK -> Generally nightly builds should not be used for releasing Fedora software. Many upstream projects remove upstream nightly build files in short periods of time, making it impossible to validate the upstream sources. Is it possible to use a stable or unstable release version? [PASS]: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [7] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3290241 [ N/A] 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] 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] 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] 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] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11] [ N/A] 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]: 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]: 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] [PASS]: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. [15] [PASS] Each package must consistently use macros. [16] Macros are consistently used, but I'd recommend against using the shortname macro - it is confusing and adds no value. The source1 and Source2 init script definitions use %{name} which is confusing - a maintainer has to figure out what name means. Better not to use a macro for this case. These are just my opinions, so take them for what they are worth. [PASS] The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17] [PASS] 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] [PASS] 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] Header files must be in a -devel package. [19] [ N/A] Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20] [ N/A] 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] 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] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.[20] [ N/A] 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 that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. [22] [PASS] 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] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. -- 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.

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=731966 Steven Dake <sdake(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #4 from Steven Dake <sdake(a)redhat.com&gt; 2011-08-21 13:57:33 EDT --- Python package review: Please see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python To build a package containing python2 files, you need to have BuildRequires: python2-devel [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 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.

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=731966 --- Comment #6 from Mark McLoughlin <markmc(a)redhat.com&gt; 2011-08-22 11:07:13 EDT --- Updated: Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/markmc/openstack-fedora-specs/8adec04/SPECS/openst... SRPM URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=3291720&name=openst... Scratch Koji Build URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3291718 Fedora 16 yum repo URL: http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/markmc/openstack/fedora-openstack.repo -- 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.

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=731966 --- Comment #8 from Mark McLoughlin <markmc(a)redhat.com&gt; 2011-08-22 12:33:06 EDT --- Steven - okay, consider BR: python2-devel added. I'll do it before importing I might remove it again later based on python SIG feedback, but there's no need to block on 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.

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=731966 --- Comment #10 from Mark McLoughlin <markmc(a)redhat.com&gt; 2011-08-22 13:12:33 EDT --- Spec: https://raw.github.com/markmc/openstack-fedora-specs/c2cc11a/SPECS/openst... bzs from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/OpenStack: # uidgid reservation for swift, glance and nova # logrotate config for glance # no-manual-page-for-binary warnings # Switch from sysvinit scripts to systemd units # File bugs with upstream requesting that releases include a license file in their distributions -- 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.

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=731966 Mark McLoughlin <markmc(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|sdake(a)redhat.com |markmc(a)redhat.com Flag| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #12 from Mark McLoughlin <markmc(a)redhat.com&gt; 2011-08-22 13:22:11 EDT --- Thanks again Steven New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: openstack-glance Short Description: OpenStack Image Service Owners: markmc Branches: f16 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.

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=731966 Mark McLoughlin <markmc(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2011-08-23 03:34:02 --- Comment #14 from Mark McLoughlin <markmc(a)redhat.com&gt; 2011-08-23 03:34:02 EDT --- Built now in rawhide and f16 -- 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.

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=731966 --- Comment #16 from Jon Ciesla <limb(a)jcomserv.net&gt; 2011-08-29 12:52:13 EDT --- Please resubmit SCM request as a Change, since it now exists. 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.

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=731966 --- Comment #18 from Jon Ciesla <limb(a)jcomserv.net&gt; 2011-08-29 13:00:56 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.