Bug 199688
| Summary: | Review Request: virt-manager | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Daniel Berrangé <berrange> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | David Cantrell <dcantrell> |
| Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2006-07-27 16:20:08 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: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 188268 | ||
|
Description
Daniel Berrangé
2006-07-21 13:04:52 UTC
General tech ack. Some complaints: - %Source tag contains not a full qualified URL. - rpmlint virt-manager-0.1.5-1.src.rpm W: virt-manager strange-permission virt-manager.spec 0600 - *.pyo files don't prefix with %ghost. - What is the extra_release going to be? Our naming scheme only allows:
<wholenumber>%{?dist}.<wholenumber>
- Python requires are automatic, don't need to put it in.
rpmlint is silent except for the above mentioned permission thing, which is
ignorable.
Please address the issues in comment #2 as well.
The %extra_release stuff is not intended to be used for formal release builds. We have a automated builder system which builds snapshots of the app from source 24x7, which defines %extra_release based on a timestamp to distinguish snapshot RPM builds, from formal Fedora releases. I can take it out of the spec file if desired, or put a comment in as to its intended use. Do the automatic python requires pick up any versioning information? If not then I think it could be desirable to leave in the requires lines for python libvirt & dbus packages, so that if people try to deploy the RPM they don't do so against an older version of libvirt / dbus, which are known not to work. The pygtk, gconf & ctypes deps could easily come out though because I don't believe that's any critical versioning info that would be lost. I'll produce an updated spec file with fixes for the .pyo %ghost & full URL for %source, in the next few days. I was just referring to the Requires: python itself. Python based packages now get an automatic python ABI requirement. As far as the Extra stuff, you can leave it, just comment around it. Next few days may be too late with the freeze supposed to be happening today... Unfortunate bad timing on my part - I'm actually out of the country on vacation & only got sporadic internet access :-( Anyway I managed to get the requisite changes done, so updated SPEC is at: http://people.redhat.com/berrange/review/virt-manager-0.1.5-2.spec And updated SRPM is http://people.redhat.com/berrange/yum/fedora/5/SRPMS/virt-manager-0.1.5-2.src.rpm Looks good, approving. I suppose add this as a default in the Xen group? Added to dist-fc6. Please close when built into -HEAD and I'll move it over for test2. This was built into rawhide. |