Bug 701426
| Summary: | Review Request: python-taboot - Client utility for scripted multi-system administration over Func | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Tim Bielawa <tbielawa> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Kevin Fenzi <kevin> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, kevin, ktdreyer, notting |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | kevin:
fedora-review+
j: fedora-cvs+ |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | python-taboot-0.2.13-1.el6 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2011-05-12 20:29:15 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: | 702892 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | |||
|
Description
Tim Bielawa
2011-05-02 20:17:10 UTC
Welcome Tim! Please block FE-NEEDSPONSOR. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group Oh man, missed that! I thought I had gotten everything. It's blocking now. Thanks for the pointer. I'm not sure when I might get to it, but if no one beats me to it I am interested in reviewing this and sponsoring you. ;) (Other sponsors feel free to take it before then. :) Today I released Taboot 0.2.12-1. The specfile listed has been updated to reflect this. The new SRPM address is: http://people.redhat.com/~tbielawa/taboot/releases/taboot-latest/python-taboot-0.2.12-1.fc14.src.rpm Side note: I make concurrent releases for el5/el6/FC14. There are SRPMs for el5 and el6 in that directory as well. ok, I am going to try and get this reviewed this weekend. ;) Look for a review in a while... Do you have any other packages you are going to submit at this time? 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 GPLv3+
OK - License field in spec matches
OK - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
676c7ef0093bbd43298cedf934420143 python-taboot-0.2.12.tar.gz
676c7ef0093bbd43298cedf934420143 python-taboot-0.2.12.tar.gz.orig
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
See below - 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.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
OK - Package obey's FHS standard (except for 2 exceptions)
See below - No rpmlint output.
OK - final provides and requires are sane.
SHOULD Items:
OK - Should build in mock.
OK - Should build on all supported archs
OK - Should function as described.
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
Issues:
1. Not a blocker, but: There's no need to use macros for things that are longer than
the command they replace, ie, %{__make} vs just 'make'. I think the non macro versions
make the spec more readable, but it's up to you.
2. Both the main package and subpackage require func, so what is the advantage of
having the subpackage? I guess to install on clients only?
3. You don't need a clean section if you aren't targeting EPEL (which I hope you are)
but why the "%{__make} clean" at the top of it?
4. rpmlint says:
taboot-func.noarch: W: no-documentation
which can be ignored.
Kevin, thanks for taking the time to review this! > Issues: > > 1. Not a blocker, but: There's no need to use macros for things that are longer... You just cleared something up I've been wondering for a while. I figured the macros were for compatibility across build targets. But yeah you're right, cp and rm are probably not going to have any compatibility issues. I'm going to leave them in though since: 1) they're already there, and 2) the uniformity makes the %install section look nice and readable. > 2. Both the main package and subpackage require func, so what is the advantage... - python-taboot is a client package that you can install on any minion you run commands from, your 'command-center' you might say. - taboot-func is a func module that gets installed on target machines. I'll update the %description of that, its purpose could be much clearer. Specifically: taboot-func provides a func interface to the mod_jk API on tomcat JK balancers. The way we use Taboot now we have 'command center' type host in a given environment that is granted access to the other minions. From there the func command would go to a machine and utilize the modjk func module that was installed by taboot-func. > 3. You don't need a clean section if you aren't targeting EPEL (which I hope you are) but why > the "%{__make} clean" at the top of it? That is a very good question. I'll see it's unnecessary and remove it if so. Yes, I do intend to target EPEL. From the EPEL Package Maintainers Page [0] I see it says that after this is approved for Fedora I can then go on to request EPEL branches. What does that require of me exactly? > Do you have any other packages you are going to submit at this time? When you asked about taboot-func it reminded me that the modjkapi library needs to be available too. It's already packaged with a specfile, I just need to build it and clean out any rpmlint that might show up. I'll reply to this ticket again as soon as I have another release addressing the issues you brought up. Also included will be a reference to the modjkapi library review request. [0] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL_Package_Maintainers > 2. Both the main package and subpackage require func, so what is > the advantage... Description of taboot-func has been updated in this release. > 3. You don't need a clean section if you aren't targeting EPEL (which I hope > you are) but why the "%{__make} clean" at the top of it? I removed "make clean" and the world didn't come to an end. It's gone in this release too. > Do you have any other packages you are going to submit at this time? Now blocking this ticket is a review request for python-modjkapi. taboot-func has been updated to depend on it (it should have been doing that before now anyway). Specfile url is the same: http://people.redhat.com/~tbielawa/taboot/python-taboot.spec SRPM is now: http://people.redhat.com/~tbielawa/taboot/releases/taboot-0.2.13/python-taboot-0.2.13-1.fc14.src.rpm Thanks for your time Kevin I don't see any further blockers here, so this package is APPROVED. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-taboot Short Description: Client utility for scripted multi-system administration over Func Owners: tbielawa Branches: f14 f15 el5 el6 InitialCC: Git done (by process-git-requests). Koji builds complete: - el5 - el6 - f14 python-taboot-0.2.13-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-taboot-0.2.13-1.el5 python-taboot-0.2.13-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-taboot-0.2.13-1.el6 python-taboot-0.2.13-1.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-taboot-0.2.13-1.fc14 python-taboot-0.2.13-1.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository. python-taboot-0.2.13-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. python-taboot-0.2.13-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. |