Bug 521319
Summary: | Review Request: virt-v2v - Convert a virtual machine to run on KVM | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Matthew Booth <mbooth> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Richard W.M. Jones <rjones> |
Status: | CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, kevin, markmc, notting, pahan, rc040203, rjones |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | rjones:
fedora-review+
j: 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: | 2010-06-08 13:06:49 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
Matthew Booth
2009-09-04 18:26:52 UTC
Taking for review. It builds, but you need to add a libguestfs version dep. The current dep: BuildRequires: perl(Sys::Guestfs::Lib) >= 1.0.68 doesn't work. It seems that perl() deps are unversioned and therefore rpm will happily accept any version. To make it fail properly on my old version of libguestfs I had to add: BuildRequires: libguestfs >= 1:1.0.68 ... Requires: libguestfs >= 1:1.0.68 Note also the epoch. --- After making the above change (and installing the requisite version of libguestfs), I was able to build it locally. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1660335 rpmlint is silent. + rpmlint output + package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines Reporter doesn't think the Perl libraries are independently useful, so they don't need to go in a separate package and we don't need to follow the Perl naming guidelines for that too closely. + specfile name matches the package base name + package should satisfy packaging guidelines (See above about Perl packaging guidelines, although the package is broadly correct even for them). + license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora + license matches the actual package license + %doc includes license file + spec file written in American English + spec file is legible + upstream sources match sources in the srpm + package successfully builds on at least one architecture http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1660335 n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires list all build dependencies Koji build proves this. + %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/* Although commented out at the moment, however this is correct for this package. n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun + does not use Prefix: /usr + package owns all directories it creates + no duplicate files in %files + %defattr line + %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT + consistent use of macros + package must contain code or permissible content n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + files marked %doc should not affect package n/a header files should be in -devel n/a static libraries should be in -static n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig' n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base n/a packages should not contain libtool .la files n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file + packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages + %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc. + filenames must be valid UTF-8 Optional: + if there is no license file, packager should query upstream n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if available + reviewer should build the package in mock n/a the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures + review should test the package functions as described n/a scriptlets should be sane n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel + shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or /usr/sbin ========== APPROVED by rjones ========== The only thing to do is to modify the spec file as in comment 2. (In reply to comment #2) > It builds, but you need to add a libguestfs version > dep. The current dep: > > BuildRequires: perl(Sys::Guestfs::Lib) >= 1.0.68 > > doesn't work. It seems that perl() deps are unversioned Untrue. perl(..) are referring to a perl-module's version, not to the rpm's or the package's versions. If a perl-module doesn't carry a version (from Perl's perspective), this perl module's version's rpm-representation, i.e. the perl(..) dep is unversioned. (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #2) > > It builds, but you need to add a libguestfs version > > dep. The current dep: > > > > BuildRequires: perl(Sys::Guestfs::Lib) >= 1.0.68 > > > > doesn't work. It seems that perl() deps are unversioned > Untrue. perl(..) are referring to a perl-module's version, not to the rpm's or > the package's versions. > > If a perl-module doesn't carry a version (from Perl's perspective), this perl > module's version's rpm-representation, i.e. the perl(..) dep is unversioned. OK, understood. I opened a libguestfs bug to fix this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=521674 New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: virt-v2v Short Description: Convert a virtual machine to run on KVM Owners: mdbooth Branches: F-11 F-12 EL-5 InitialCC: Matthew: I don't see you in the packager group. Is this your first package? Yes, it is. So Matt needs sponsorship, is that right? I'm now a member of the packager group. Rich is my sponsor. (In reply to comment #8) > Matthew: I don't see you in the packager group. Is this your first package? Kevin, is there anything else which Matt or I need to do in order to get this package added to CVS? I *think* I've followed all the relevant rules from the wiki... These are done by hand and occasionally it takes a bit for a human to find the time to run through the queue. CVS done. Can we get virtmaint added to cvs commit and bugzilla cc ? Thanks Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: virt-v2v InitialCC: virtmaint Mark, I'm new to this. Do I have to do anything to make this happen? I don't see any flags set on the BZ, so I guess I do. Any idea what? For cvs requests, you need to set the fedora-cvs flag to ? Since I was already CC'ed here, I went ahead and processed the request. ;) cvs done. I'm pretty sure this bug should be closed now since virt-v2v has been in Fedora for quite a long time. |