Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 439117
Review Request: preupgrade - Preresolves dependencies and prepares a system for an upgrade
Last modified: 2008-05-14 15:49:10 EDT
Spec URL: http://skvidal.fedorapeople.org/preupgrade/preupgrade.spec SRPM URL: http://skvidal.fedorapeople.org/preupgrade/preupgrade-0.8-1.src.rpm Description: Preresolves all dependencies, downloads the packages and makes your system ready for an upgrade via anaconda.
This wasn't building in mock for me; missing BuildRequires on python?
Added. Builds in mock for me now. Spec URL: http://wwoods.fedorapeople.org/review/preupgrade.spec SRPM URL: http://wwoods.fedorapeople.org/review/preupgrade-0.9-1.src.rpm
Builds fine. rpmlint says: preupgrade.src: W: strange-permission preupgrade.spec 0600 which is a little weird but isn't a blocker. (If it were 666, that would be a problem.) Is there no URL where the source can be downloaded? Where does the tarball come from? BuildRoot should be one of the values from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot or at minimum should include %{release} in addition to what's there. You can shorten BuildArchitectures: as BuildArch: if you like to save typing. (I only mention it because vim highlights it oddly; the 'itectures' is a different color.) You can remove the tests that ensure the buildroot isn't '/'; rpmbuild does that for you. I was under the impression that Red Hat-developed code was GPLv2 only. Not really my business as the License: tag matches the source code, but I figured I'd ask. I notice you don't use the dist tag. Your choice, of course; I assume you know how to deal with its absence. ? can't check that the sources match upstream. * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. X build root is not OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: config(preupgrade) = 0.9-1 preupgrade = 0.9-1 = /bin/sh /usr/bin/python config(preupgrade) = 0.9-1 python >= 2.1 python(abi) = 2.5 rpm >= 0:4.1.1 rpm-python usermode yum >= 3.2.8 yum-metadata-parser * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. I installed this on a rawhide box and it ran well enough, although it doesn't really do much in that case. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
Should/Can I report also bugs (not concerning packaging) now or should I wait until the review process is accomplished and file then bugs against this component when it will be created in bugzilla?
Milos, This isn't really the best place to report bugs in preupgrade, since this ticket will quickly become impossible to follow and issues wouldn't be able to be tracked individually. My recommendation would be to go to the upstream web site and file tickets in their track instance. https://fedorahosted.org/preupgrade/
(In reply to comment #3) > Builds fine. rpmlint says: > preupgrade.src: W: strange-permission preupgrade.spec 0600 > which is a little weird but isn't a blocker. (If it were 666, that would be a > problem.) artifact of rpmbuild -ts file.tar.gz :) > Is there no URL where the source can be downloaded? Where does the tarball come > from? not yet, we've not exactly made an official release, yet. > BuildRoot should be one of the values from > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot or at minimum > should include %{release} in addition to what's there. fixed. > You can shorten BuildArchitectures: as BuildArch: if you like to save typing. > (I only mention it because vim highlights it oddly; the 'itectures' is a > different color.) fixed. > > You can remove the tests that ensure the buildroot isn't '/'; rpmbuild does that > for you. fixed. > > I was under the impression that Red Hat-developed code was GPLv2 only. Not > really my business as the License: tag matches the source code, but I figured > I'd ask. that's news to me. Where did you see that? > > I notice you don't use the dist tag. Your choice, of course; I assume you know > how to deal with its absence. we'll add it b/c we will need it.
okay so: 1. added the source path and url 2. put up a new src.rpm and spec file at: http://skvidal.fedorapeople.org/preupgrade/ let me know if this passes muster.
Yeah, this looks fine. The buildroot's good, source URL is good, all of the other minor issues are fixed, and it still builds. APPROVED
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: preupgrade Short Description: Preresolves dependencies and prepares a system for an upgrade Owners: skvidal, wwoods, katzj Branches: F8, devel InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes
cvs done.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: preupgrade Short Description: Preresolves dependencies and prepares a system for an upgrade Owners: skvidal, wwoods, katzj Branches: F7 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes Requesting just the F7 branch addition.