Bug 1403381

Summary:	Review Request: microdnf - Micro DNF
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Igor Gnatenko <ignatenko>
Component:	Package Review	Assignee:	Neal Gompa <ngompa13>
Status:	CLOSED RAWHIDE	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	rawhide	CC:	dustymabe, ngompa13, package-review
Target Milestone:	---	Flags:	ngompa13: fedora-review+
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2017-01-01 11:08:00 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Igor Gnatenko 2016-12-09 21:33:38 UTC

Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/microdnf.spec
SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/microdnf-0-5.gitbb62334.fc26.src.rpm
Description: Micor DNF.
Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain

Comment 1 Neal Gompa 2016-12-09 22:07:31 UTC

Taking this review.

Comment 2 Neal Gompa 2016-12-09 22:21:21 UTC

Overall, this looks great.

However, there's one problem:

> Release:        5.git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}

This is not valid form, per the guidelines. Pre-release builds (that is, git snapshot builds like this one) need to have a release number less than 1.

So, it should start with "0.1" or something like that.

Comment 3 Jason Tibbitts 2016-12-10 01:27:47 UTC

Yes, prerelease versions must have a release beginning with 0.N.  Snapshot releases must also include the date.

0.5.20161209git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning

And the big cleanup I'm working on, which you may find clearer:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tibbs/VersioningCleanup

Just got a suggestion for clarifying this even further, so I'll be working on that more over the weekend.

Comment 4 Igor Gnatenko 2016-12-12 15:44:29 UTC

Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/microdnf.spec
SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/microdnf-1-1.fc26.src.rpm

Jason, Neal,
* IMO 0.X makes sense when Version != 0
* gitdate is completely useless (even is mandated guidelines)

Given that I just released v1 in upstream to not have long and pointless discussion here.

Comment 5 Neal Gompa 2016-12-12 15:46:48 UTC

Looks good to me.

PACKAGE APPROVED.

Comment 6 Gwyn Ciesla 2016-12-12 15:55:33 UTC

Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/microdnf