Bug 796074

Rpmlint output:
numad.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: numad-0.5.tar.xz
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

I'll take this.

Minor issue: there's some trailing whitespace in the spec. Some in the description and some after %preun

Here's the fedora-review issues output when run on f16:

[!]: MUST Buildroot is not present
     Note: Invalid buildroot found:
     %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-buildroot

Just drop the Buildroot from the spec, maybe it was just added for local test purposes? If that's the case, setup rpmmacros like

cat ~/.rpmmacros 
%_topdir /home/crobinso/src/rpmroot

[!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
     Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
     Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5

These two aren't required since it doesn't sound like this is heading for EPEL, rather RHEL proper. These changes may need to be made for RHEL though (not blocking this review).

[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.

rpmlint numad-debuginfo-0.5-1.fc18.i686.rpm

numad-debuginfo.i686: E: debuginfo-without-sources
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.

  Not quite sure what the problem is here

rpmlint numad-0.5-1.fc18.src.rpm

numad.src: W: strange-permission numad1.patch 0600L

  making it 644 will probably silence this

numad.src: W: invalid-url Source0: numad-0.5.tar.xz

  Not an error per-se, but since you seem to own the fedorahosted git repo,
  why not just make a 0.5 tarball and upload it to fedorahosted? See the
  FAQ for publishing releases.

  https://fedorahosted.org/web/faq

  Otherwise since you are doing a git snapshot, you should follow the (more
  complex) git naming guidelines:

  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages

  I'd recommend just cutting an upstream tarball.

numad.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib

  I assume this has to do with systemd unit files, so safe to ignore.


Also, can you provide more info about the patch in the spec file? Why isn't it upstream? Will it ever be upstream? What are the two difference licenses the spec comment talks about? Should there be two licenses in the License field?

Updated spec and srpm.
Spec URL: http://jsynacek.fedorapeople.org/numad/numad.spec
SRPM URL: numad-0.5-1.20120221git.fc18.src.rpm

The patch is going to be a part of the upstream code in near future (after the upstream developers make final decisions about the code).

> SRPM URL: numad-0.5-1.20120221git.fc18.src.rpm
Wrong link, sorry.

SRPM URL: http://jsynacek.fedorapeople.org/numad/numad-0.5-1.20120221git.fc18.src.rpm

Looks good now, approved!

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: numad
Short Description: NUMA user daemon
Owners: jsynacek bburns
Branches: f16 f17
InitialCC: jsynacek bburns

Git done (by process-git-requests).

Done, but without bburns, which is not a valid FAS account.  Once it is,
this can be added in pkgdb.

My FAS account is "billburnseh"

numad-0.5-2.20120221git.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/numad-0.5-2.20120221git.fc17

numad-0.5-2.20120221git.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.

numad-0.5-2.20120221git.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.