|Summary:||Review Request: epel-release EPEL repository configuration and setup|
|Product:||[Fedora] Fedora||Reporter:||Michael Stahnke <mastahnke>|
|Component:||Package Review||Assignee:||Kevin Fenzi <kevin>|
|Status:||CLOSED NEXTRELEASE||QA Contact:||Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review>|
|Version:||rawhide||CC:||dennis, kevin, petersen|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2007-04-18 11:47:28 UTC||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
Description Michael Stahnke 2007-03-21 04:20:04 UTC
Spec URL: SRPM URL: http://www.stahnkage.com/tmp/epel-release-4-2.src.rpm Description: EPEL repository configuration and setup
Comment 1 Jens Petersen 2007-03-23 00:41:04 UTC
Was wondering if it would be easier to have one generic package to cover both EL4 and EL5?
Comment 2 Michael Stahnke 2007-03-23 02:20:55 UTC
Jens, it was planned to use the same package for both. The only differences in RHEL 5 should be the yum repo file, and a bump of epel-release. Up2date isn't involved in RHEL 5, so that's a plus. I just submitted this to get the ball rolling on the epel-release package. I thought it would have to approved only on EL 4 and then I would bump for EL 5 and build. I followed the model used by Fedora-release.
Comment 3 Jens Petersen 2007-03-23 02:46:12 UTC
You're right: the version only appears in two places... :)
Comment 4 Kevin Fenzi 2007-03-24 23:21:06 UTC
Humm. I can't seem to get to the srpm url... just hangs on me. Eventually I get: 504 Gateway Time-out 17:18:35 ERROR 504: Gateway Time-out. Also, is there a spec url?
Comment 5 Kevin Fenzi 2007-03-24 23:27:58 UTC
Nevermind. Now it's working. ;) Will review this in a bit here...
Comment 6 Kevin Fenzi 2007-03-24 23:45:35 UTC
OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GPL) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. See below - Sources match upstream md5sum: OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. See below - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. See below - final provides and requires are sane. SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. Issues: 1. Since redhat/fedora is upstream for this package, can you add a note as suggested in: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#head-413e1c297803cfa9de0cc4c56f3ac384bff5dc9e 2. The up2date files present a problem. Should up2date be required by this package (so that the post commands work right)? If so, that would be anoying to places where up2date was not installed. Perhaps it should be in a subpackage, only installed by those that have up2date? Should this package require 'yum' ? 3. Where does the version come from? 4 for epel4? Is the epel5 version of this going to be version 5? If so, perhaps there is no need for the dist tag? 4. rpmlint says: W: epel-release non-conffile-in-etc /etc/epel-release W: epel-release non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-EPEL I think those can be ignored. W: epel-release dangerous-command-in-%postun cp Do we need to make a rpmsave there? 5. The description could be a bit more verbose. Perhaps you could expand EPEL in case there are people who don't know what it means?
Comment 7 Dennis Gilmore 2007-03-25 01:25:00 UTC
RHEL4 does not have yum it only has up2date CentOS4 has yum so by not requiring either it will work on both with what comes with the distro. I really dont think EPEL should have yum for EL-4
Comment 8 Kevin Fenzi 2007-03-25 01:39:06 UTC
Yeah, looking at centos-release and redhat-release, they provide the needed directories, so there shouldn't be a need for yum or up2date Requires, so cross that off. Although, it looks like centos-release also provides an apt-rpm source list. Might be nice for this package to also provide one.
Comment 9 Thorsten Leemhuis 2007-03-25 08:02:08 UTC
Why do we need a epel-release file in etc? That seems unneeded to me. This cp in %postun looks dangerous to me, too. Can that be avoided somehow?
Comment 10 Michael Stahnke 2007-03-25 16:57:44 UTC
http://www.stahnkage.com/tmp/epel-release-4-3.src.rpm http://www.stahnkage.com/tmp/epel-release.spec My ISP has been having issues, so if you can't get these files downloaded, try again in 20 minutes or so. %changelog * Sun Mar 25 2007 Michael Stahnke <firstname.lastname@example.org> - 4-3 - Removed cp in postun - Removed the file epel-release - provides no value - Removed dist tag as per review bug #233236 - Changed description
Comment 11 Kevin Fenzi 2007-03-25 17:16:19 UTC
That looks good. The summary seems fine now, but the description is still using epel... perhaps change it from: "This package contains the epel repository GPG key as well as configuration for yum and up2date." to "This package contains the Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux (EPEL) repository GPG key as well as configuration for yum and up2date." Other than that nitpick, I don't see any blockers, so this package is APPROVED. Don't forget to close this once it's been imported and built.
Comment 12 Michael Stahnke 2007-03-25 17:22:31 UTC
I'll change the description after CVS branch. Thanks! New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: epel-release Short Description: EPEL repository configuration and setup Owners: email@example.com Branches: EL-4, EL-5
Comment 13 Dennis Gilmore 2007-03-25 17:31:02 UTC
Comment 14 Kevin Fenzi 2007-04-18 02:53:43 UTC
This package appears to be in now... can we close this review request?