Bug 852329
| Summary: | Review Request: vdsm-hooks - Virtual Desktop Server Manager Hooks | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Federico Simoncelli <fsimonce> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> |
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | acathrow, apevec, apevec, dyasny, notting, package-review |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | apevec:
fedora-review-
|
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2012-08-30 10:19:52 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
Federico Simoncelli
2012-08-28 08:25:09 UTC
Preliminary quick review: * rpmlint vdsm-hooks.spec vdsm-hooks.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: vdsm-4.9.6.tar.gz It's quite unsual to have 2 SRPM from one upstream tarball, but at least provide full URL or comments how the tarball is generated: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL * all vdsm-hook-* need to depend on vdsm, since they're under %{_libexecdir}/vdsm/ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership (In reply to comment #0) > Branch: EL-6 BTW, rawhide branch is always created for new packages, not sure what's your plan for vdsm-hook-* subpackages of vdsm in Fedora, they would conflict with this. (In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #0) > > Branch: EL-6 > > BTW, rawhide branch is always created for new packages NM, there are examples of "Only ever a EPEL6 package." e.g. http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/python-webob1.0.git/plain/dead.package Spec URL: http://fsimonce.fedorapeople.org/vdsm-hooks/vdsm-hooks.spec SRPM URL: http://fsimonce.fedorapeople.org/vdsm-hooks/vdsm-hook-4.9.6-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Virtual Desktop Server Manager Hooks Fedora Account System Username: fsimonce Branch: EL-6 * Wed Aug 29 2012 Federico Simoncelli <fsimonce> - 4.9.6-1 - add the upstream vcs information - add the vdsm package dependency (In reply to comment #4) > - add the upstream vcs information ok > - add the vdsm package dependency ok, this is now correct from a packaging guidelines perspective, but now we have the other issue: vdsm is not in base or optional RHEL channel so EPEL cannot depend on it (repoclosure must be possible with base RHEL subscription) (In reply to comment #5) > ok, this is now correct from a packaging guidelines perspective, but now we > have the other issue: vdsm is not in base or optional RHEL channel so EPEL > cannot depend on it (repoclosure must be possible with base RHEL > subscription) every package in EPEL should have one in RHEL channels? But the whole idea is to have packages that are not shipped in RHEL channels, isn't it? > every package in EPEL should have one in RHEL channels? What I was saying is that every pkg in EPEL can only depend on base RHEL + optional repo. So even if you move hooks to e.g. /usr/libexec/vdsm-hook to avoid direct vdms dependency, which would solve http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership but then we're hitting http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packages_which_are_not_useful_without_external_bits Considering this, I recommend to provide vdsm-hooks RPM in a separate unsupported repo at ovirt.org, last spec w/ vdms dep is good enough, if you document clearly that it depends on RHEV channel which contains vdsm. (In reply to comment #7) > last spec w/ vdms dep is good enough Actually, one thing: Name field must match spec filename, now it's: vdsm-hooks.spec vs Name: vdsm-hook |