Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/ktdreyer/public_git/lrbd.git/plain/lrbd.spec SRPM URL: https://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/lrbd-1.0.2-0.1.20160129gitcc757bc.fc24.src.rpm Description: This utility creates, modifies and retrieves a centralized configuration from Ceph for configuring iSCSI access on a host. Fedora Account System Username: ktdreyer Rawhide (F24) scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12732591
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. [-]: 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. [x]: 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 112640 bytes in 32 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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 %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. [x]: %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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: lrbd-1.0.2-0.1.20160129gitcc757bc.fc24.noarch.rpm lrbd-1.0.2-0.1.20160129gitcc757bc.fc24.src.rpm lrbd.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) iSCSI -> SCSI, i SCSI, Isis lrbd.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) rbd -> rd, red, rid lrbd.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iSCSI -> SCSI, i SCSI, Isis lrbd.noarch: W: empty-%postun lrbd.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) iSCSI -> SCSI, i SCSI, Isis lrbd.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) rbd -> rd, red, rid lrbd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iSCSI -> SCSI, i SCSI, Isis 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. All of these are OK, postun is not empty, it uses %systemd_postun macro, the rest are not any actual spelling errors. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- lrbd.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) iSCSI -> SCSI, i SCSI, Isis lrbd.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) rbd -> rd, red, rid lrbd.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iSCSI -> SCSI, i SCSI, Isis lrbd.noarch: W: empty-%postun 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. All of these are OK, postun is not empty, it uses %systemd_postun macro, the rest are not any actual spelling errors. Requires -------- lrbd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/python ceph-common config(lrbd) python-netifaces python-rados python-rbd systemd targetcli Provides -------- lrbd: config(lrbd) lrbd Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/SUSE/lrbd/archive/cc757bc3ee1df981fa7eac5ac16ebae6c29b1a42/lrbd-1.0.2-cc757bc.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1897a6b0116c223154cfdb4bc3ddf634d76a782d8c365b14cc1f2d6181986348 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1897a6b0116c223154cfdb4bc3ddf634d76a782d8c365b14cc1f2d6181986348 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1303245 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Thanks for the review! pkgdb entry requested.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/lrbd
Initial package imported to dist-git: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/lrbd.git/commit/?id=4a5c8bfda1f044c0060a6f0bc985e3d6724872b6
lrbd-1.0.2-0.1.20160129gitcc757bc.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-1fc3fb5682
lrbd-1.0.2-0.1.20160129gitcc757bc.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-919af89213
lrbd-1.0.2-0.1.20160129gitcc757bc.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-f8c8f2628e
lrbd-1.0.2-0.1.20160129gitcc757bc.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-919af89213
lrbd-1.0.2-0.1.20160129gitcc757bc.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-1fc3fb5682
lrbd-1.0.2-0.1.20160129gitcc757bc.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-f8c8f2628e
lrbd-1.0.2-0.1.20160129gitcc757bc.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
lrbd-1.0.2-0.1.20160129gitcc757bc.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.