Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: http://clusterlabs.org/~beekhof/sbd-repo/sbd.spec SRPM URL: http://clusterlabs.org/~beekhof/sbd-repo/sbd-1.2.1-0.1.8f91294.git.src.rpm Description: Storage based death for Pacemaker clusters. Allows surviving nodes to reliably assume missing peers are dead after a certain period of time. Fedora Account System Username: beekhof
Why can't you write the spec on your own instead of shipping losts of crufts from SUSE? All these below are invalid: %if %{defined _unitdir} %service_add_post %clean BuildRequires: python-devel %changelog BuildRoot: autoreconf -i -> autoreconf -iv
Why would I start from scratch when half the work is already done? I deleted a bunch of cruft, happy to delete more if needed. What specifically is wrong with "%if %{defined _unitdir}" ? I use it in other projects to minimize the difference between the RHEL 6 and 7 spec files. Also %changelog has been a staple of every spec file I've written for the last 12 years. Whats wrong with it nowdays? In fact pretty much everything you've noted except service_add_post seems to be bogus or your personal preference.
New srpm: http://clusterlabs.org/~beekhof/sbd-repo/sbd-1.2.1-0.2.8f91294.git.src.rpm
Package looks good, here are a few things I found. - license. GPL-2.0+ is typically written GPLv2+ - release. we typically use the %{?dist} tag - the rpm built fine. There were some warnings at the beginning that were curious though. [dvossel ~]$ rpmbuild --rebuild sbd-1.2.1-0.2.8f91294.git.src.rpm Installing sbd-1.2.1-0.2.8f91294.git.src.rpm warning: user beekhof does not exist - using root warning: group beekhof does not exist - using root warning: user beekhof does not exist - using root warning: group beekhof does not exist - using root
(In reply to David Vossel from comment #4) > Package looks good, here are a few things I found. > > - license. GPL-2.0+ is typically written GPLv2+ done > > - release. we typically use the %{?dist} tag done > > - the rpm built fine. There were some warnings at the beginning that were > curious though. > > [dvossel ~]$ rpmbuild --rebuild sbd-1.2.1-0.2.8f91294.git.src.rpm > Installing sbd-1.2.1-0.2.8f91294.git.src.rpm > warning: user beekhof does not exist - using root > warning: group beekhof does not exist - using root > warning: user beekhof does not exist - using root > warning: group beekhof does not exist - using root Those are just because I built the src.rpm with my local account.
MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1] # rpmlint sbd-1.2.1-0.2.8f91294.git.src.rpm sbd.src: W: invalid-license GPL-2.0+ sbd.src:55: W: macro-in-comment %setup sbd.src:55: W: macro-in-comment %{version} no errors MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . check MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] . check MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . check MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . check MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [3] check MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.[4] check MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5] check MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6] check MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. check MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [7] check MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8] check MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. check MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9] check MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10] check MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11] check MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. [12] check MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [13] check MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)[14] check MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. [15] check MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16] check MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. [17] check MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [18] check MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [18] check MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [19] check MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package. [20] check MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} [21] check MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.[19] check MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. [22] check MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [23] check MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [24] check
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: sbd Short Description: Storage based death for Pacemaker clusters. Upstream URL: https://github.com/l-mb/sbd Owners: beekhof dvossel Branches: f20 f21 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Hi Fabio, I am sure you want Andrew to become sponsor soon based on your quick +1 on packager-sponsor ticket. But, it seems your above change (bz re-assignment) has created problem for him. I would have not found this if I would have missed to cross check the bugzilla query results. I was almost composed my next comment on ticket but suddenly realized let's try some different query to find Andrew's work. Fabio, maybe please familiar yourself with https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/New_package_process_for_existing_contributors As per this package reviews remain assigned to package reviewer. Correcting the change for bz query and also closing this review as package is already built for all the branches.