Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Requires packaging oslo.vmware and tweaking glance "unsupported storage drivers" patch
Thanks for adding the ticket, I'll start following it. We are the ones asking about it in ask.openstack.org, so if you want user opinions/experience please do ask me.
FYI, some feedback from our devel: We got the vmware working with glance, it required packaging oslo-vmware, as well as upgrading dependency package python-iso8601 >=0.1.9. That required building such rpm, since epel didn't have it. Epel package is 0.1.8. Can you please do the same "the proper way" to RDO?
btw, we are working on rhel 6.5.
Note the python-iso8601 >= 0.1.9 check is probably coming from python runtime dependency checking which was left enabled in your local python-oslo-vmware packaging, but which we generally remove in RDO packaging due to the redundancy and conflicts with backported fixes and versions etc. Given that the fix in 0.1.9 as noted in http://pad.lv/1266398 doesn't seem too serious, we'd get away with 0.1.8, though I'll update to 0.1.9 now seeing as there should be no backwards compat issues.
Actually I forgot I'd already prepared the python-iso8601 update for EPEL: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2014-0970/python-iso8601-0.1.10-1.el6 I've pushed now and it should be available within the next day or so
Spec URL: https://gist.github.com/jbernard/9ded1beca9adfeab0b79/raw/c7a32beda7baa6efd9097f72ea1ecdbef868ec0e/python-oslo-vmware.spec SRPM URL: https://gist.github.com/jbernard/9ded1beca9adfeab0b79/raw/b3eb2e601db477af7d8c8a4258a4d4eaa2ad13c8/python-oslo-vmware-0.3-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: The Oslo project intends to produce a python library containing infrastructure code shared by OpenStack projects. The APIs provided by the project should be high quality, stable, consistent and generally useful. The Oslo VMware library offers session and API call management for VMware ESX/VC server. Fedora Account System Username: jbernard
Looks good thanks! Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/oslo See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/padraig/1099499-python-oslo-vmware/licensecheck.txt [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python2.7/site- packages/oslo(python-oslo-messaging, python-oslo-config), /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages(python-wsme, python-pecan, python-libs) [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python- oslo-vmware-doc [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-oslo-vmware-0.3-1.fc20.noarch.rpm python-oslo-vmware-doc-0.3-1.fc20.noarch.rpm python-oslo-vmware-0.3-1.fc20.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-oslo-vmware-doc python-oslo-vmware 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python-oslo-vmware-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python-oslo-vmware (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python-oslo-vmware-doc: python-oslo-vmware-doc python-oslo-vmware: python-oslo-vmware Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/o/oslo.vmware/oslo.vmware-0.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 00acd22fc866241fbec041e5dc5811f4697a4269ce6d47297f324b32053d6722 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 00acd22fc866241fbec041e5dc5811f4697a4269ce6d47297f324b32053d6722 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1099499 Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
Since the glance vmware data store requires this package, I need to upload some builds for f20 and rdo. Can you create the repository that I'll need for this?
Hi Jon, you need to create an scm request in this bug. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests Don't forget the fedora-cvs flag as part of that. thanks
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-oslo-vmware Short Description: Oslo VMware library for OpenStack projects Upstream URL: http://launchpad.net/oslo Owners: jbernard flaper87 Branches: f20 el6 epel7 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Starting from python-stevedore it should be Requires: not BuildRequires:
Alan: fixed in git, will be included in next upload. Thanks for the catch.