Bug 520563
Summary: | Review Request: rgmanager - Open Source HA Resource Group Failover for Red Hat Cluster | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Fabio Massimo Di Nitto <fdinitto> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Andrew Beekhof <andrew> |
Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | andrew, fedora-package-review, nobody, notting |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | andrew:
fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2009-09-25 17:10:55 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
Fabio Massimo Di Nitto
2009-09-01 06:52:29 UTC
I'll take this Pretty straight forward... [beekhof@ppc ~]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-ppc64/result/*.rpm rgmanager.spec 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Review: 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 (GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+) OK - License field in spec matches See below - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum (spec based on pre-release tarball). 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. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1647332 OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - Package obey's FHS standard. OK - final provides and requires are sane. SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs. OK - Should have dist tag. OK - Should package latest version. OK - Should not use file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin. Good to go. Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: rgmanager New Branches: F-10 F-11 devel Hi guys, we are resurrecting the package from ashes. The current binary rpm is built from cluster.srpm. we would like to start building rgmanager again from rgmanager.srpm. the fedora-cvs entry for rgmanager already exists but it's marked as dead.package. I am not even 100% sure i need to file a cvs request because i could theoretically reopen devel/ myself. Please let me know if there is any further step I need to take. Fabio https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Orphaned_package_that_need_new_maintainers has some of the procedure. Was this package retired more than 3 months ago? It looks like it was, so it will need to be submitted like it was a new package and pass review again. (In reply to comment #4) > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Orphaned_package_that_need_new_maintainers > has some of the procedure. This is the procedure I followed and that's why this bug is a New Package Review Request. > > Was this package retired more than 3 months ago? Yes. > It looks like it was, so it will need to be submitted like it was a new package > and pass review again. Andrew did the review step hence the fedora-review+. This is a new bug vs the original rgmanager request done years ago. Then according to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process that points to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CVS_admin_requests at point 4 of the review process it seems natural to use "Package Change Requests for existing packages" since the bits already exists in fedora-cvs and it's a "special request" rather than a new package. Anyway.. new CVS request follow in the next comment. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: rgmanager Short Description: Open Source HA Resource Group Failover for Red Hat Cluster Owners: fabbione lon Branches: F-10 F-11 InitialCC: Sorry about that... I missed that this was the re-review. :( Note that you may have to file a ticket with rel-eng to unblock the package if it was blocked. cvs done. Hi Kevin, |-- F-10 | |-- CVS | | |-- Entries | | |-- Repository | | `-- Root | |-- branch | `-- dead.package |-- F-11 | |-- CVS | | |-- Entries | | |-- Repository | | `-- Root | |-- branch | `-- dead.package |-- devel | |-- CVS | | |-- Entries | | |-- Repository | | `-- Root | `-- dead.package am I allowed to restore the CVS Makefiles myself? or should it be done as part of the CVS process? Either way works for me, but I don't want to break automatic scripts and stuff that takes care of those. Fabio You should be able to restore them yourself. Basically do a checkout of the last tag before it was dead.packaged, cvs rm -f dead.package, and check the new version back in. If you run into problems, let me know and I can manually do them from here. *** Bug 226369 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** |