Spec URL: http://ovirt.org/libvirt-qpid.spec SRPM URL: http://ovirt.org/libvirt-qpid-0.2.0-1.src.rpm Description: I've packaged up libvirt-qpid and would like to have it reviewed for inclusion into fedora. libvirt-qpid provides an interface with libvirt using QMF (qpid modeling framework) which utilizes the AMQP protocol. The Advanced Message Queuing Protocol (AMQP) is an open standard application layer protocol providing reliable transport of messages. QMF provides a modeling framework layer on top of qpid (which implements AMQP). This interface allows you to manage hosts, domains, pools etc. as a set of objects with properties and methods.
Can you run rpmlint over it and fix the errors and warnings it produces ? Once that's done, I'll do a more thorough review. Here's a few more obvious nits: * change the make line in %build to make %{?_smp_mflags} * Don't comment out Url and Buildroot, and make sure Buildroot is set to one of the recommended values in the guidelines * You use /usr/share in %files .. use %{_datadir} instead * Why do you use AutoReq: no - is the versioning of the qpid libraries insufficient ? If so, you should raise that with them
OK, I've addressed all the things above and no complaints from rpmlint. I couldn't use the smp_mflags however as it tried to spawn multiple qmf-gen's and would break the build. I re-uploaded the spec and src rpm. They are now at: http://ovirt.org/libvirt-qpid.spec ovirt.org/libvirt-qpid-0.2.0-2.src.rpm
sorry http://ovirt.org/libvirt-qpid-0.2.0-2.src.rpm
Fails to build on all architectures. If there's a good reason why not, you'll need to file an appropriate bug and make sure it's on the FE-ExcludeArch-$ARCH tracker for each architecture on which you don't build it -- and then you can use ExcludeArch. And if there isn't a good reason, you know what to do :) It seems to require qpidc which doesn't exist on all architectures -- and which seems to be breaking the rules by not having an appropriate bug filed on the ExcludeArch trackers.
Yes that is the reason why it's not all architectures (qpidc not supporting all archs). I guess the right thing to do would be to file a bug against qpidc and then I could do the same for libvirt-qpid. Can I file that bug or do I talk to the owners of the package? Thanks!
Bug 268244 -- it did already exist, but it wasn't correctly marked as blocking the FE-ExcludeArch-$ARCH trackers for the excluded architectures.
dammit. bug 468244.
So where are we at with this then? It sounds like the next qpid release will fix the architecture issue. I'm inclined to just wait till then and remove it here. Do I still need to file a bug against libvirt-qpid?
Is libvirt-qpid also missing on some architectures? If so, it should have an ExcludeArch bug of its own, blocking the FE-ExcludeArch-$ARCH trackers for the affected architectures. And that bug should by blocked by the qpid bug.
based on the Koji scratch build in http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1177393, a few minor things remain to be fixed: OK - Package name OK - License info is accurate OK - License tag is correct and licenses are approved OK - License files are installed as %doc OK - Specfile name OK - Specfile is legible OK - No prebuilt binaries included FIX - BuildRoot value (one of the recommended values) See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag OK - PreReq not used FIX - Source md5sum matches upstream No upstream release; make Source a URL to the download for the tarball OK - No hardcoded pathnames OK - Package owns all the files it installs OK - 'Requires' create needed unowned directories OK - Package builds successfully on i386 and x86_64 (mock) OK - BuildRequires sufficient FIX - File permissions set properly rpmlint complains that /usr/share/doc/libvirt-qpid-0.2.12 and /usr/share/libvirt-qpid are mode 02755 OK - Macro usage is consistent FIX - rpmlint is silent See above warnings about directory perms OK - Proper debuginfo packages
APPROVED Please follow http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CVSAdminProcedure and import the package. Close this bug as RAWHIDE once it's been successfully imported and built. SRPM/spec file at http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1193621 Minor nits: * the version for the last changelog entry is incorrect (makes rpmlint complain) * rather than using %defattr and %attr, fix the build process of libvirt-qpid to give files the correct permissions * since you're also upstream, please put up a page with downloads of official releases so that people can independently verify that the sources are really what they ought to be (would also be a good idea to tag releases in git for the morbidly curious)
OK, I have resolved the changelog entry. I spoke to you on IRC regarding the %attr stuff and I couldn't get it to work properly without them (permissions on %doc directories for example seemed almost random). I will do an upstream release shortly.
I should also mention that the latest spec file can be seen at: http://git.et.redhat.com/?p=libvirt-qpid.git;a=blob_plain;f=libvirt-qpid.spec;hb=HEAD
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: libvirt-qpid Short Description: QPid QMF interface to Libvirt Owners: imain Branches: F-10 F-11 InitialCC: lutter
Why is this bug restricted to only viewing by some groups? (It still goes to the review public mailing list, so that seems pretty pointless.) Also, Ian: I don't see you in the packager group. Is this your first fedora package? If so, you will need a sponsor. Clearing cvs until thats figured. Feel free to reset when it's ready.
OK, I've reset to public bug (I don't know why it wasn't before), and I am now in the packager group. Yes it is my first package :). Thanks!
Thanks for fixing those things up. David: can you set the fedora-review flag to +? Just a formality, but it should be done. ;)
The package seems to be in the distribution, so I don't see why this ticket hasn't been closed. Since nobody involved with this bug has done so, I'll set the flag and close it out.