Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/~rafaels/specs/qpid-tools.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/~rafaels/srpms/qpid-tools-0.7.917557-2.el5.src.rpm Description: Management and diagnostic tools for Apache Qpid brokers and clients.
Updated SRPM Here: http://people.redhat.com/~rafaels/srpms/qpid-tools-0.7.917557-3.el5.src.rpm
I reviewed the updated srpm posted above, qpid-tools-0.7.917557-3.el5.src.rpm * MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. OK $ mock -r fedora-rawhide-i386 ~/Download/qpid-tools-0.7.917557-3.el5.src.rpm INFO: mock.py version 1.0.5 starting... State Changed: init plugins State Changed: start INFO: Start(/home/nsantos/Download/qpid-tools-0.7.917557-3.el5.src.rpm) Config(fedora-rawhide-i386) State Changed: lock buildroot State Changed: clean State Changed: init State Changed: lock buildroot Mock Version: 1.0.5 INFO: Mock Version: 1.0.5 INFO: enabled root cache State Changed: unpacking root cache INFO: enabled yum cache State Changed: cleaning yum metadata INFO: enabled ccache State Changed: running yum State Changed: setup State Changed: build INFO: Done(/home/nsantos/Download/qpid-tools-0.7.917557-3.el5.src.rpm) Config(fedora-rawhide-i386) 0 minutes 24 seconds INFO: Results and/or logs in: /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result INFO: Running createrepo on binary rpms in resultdir $ ls -alF /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result total 88 drwxrwsr-x. 3 nsantos mock 4096 2010-03-30 10:04 ./ drwxrwsr-x. 4 root mock 4096 2010-03-30 10:04 ../ -rw-rw-r--. 1 nsantos mock 6739 2010-03-30 10:04 build.log -rw-r--r--. 1 nsantos mock 19840 2010-03-30 10:04 qpid-tools-0.7.917557-3.fc14.noarch.rpm -rw-r--r--. 1 nsantos mock 20604 2010-03-30 10:04 qpid-tools-0.7.917557-3.fc14.src.rpm drwxr-sr-x. 2 root mock 4096 2010-03-30 10:04 repodata/ -rw-rw-r--. 1 nsantos mock 17559 2010-03-30 10:04 root.log -rw-rw-r--. 1 nsantos mock 318 2010-03-30 10:04 state.log $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/*.rpm qpid-tools.noarch: W: non-standard-group Development/Python qpid-tools.noarch: W: no-documentation qpid-tools.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/qpid-config qpid-tools.src: W: non-standard-group Development/Python 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. * MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . OK * MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. OK * MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . OK * MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . OK (ASL 2.0) * MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK * 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. N/A * MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. OK * MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. OK * MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. OK (but md5sum missing) * MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. OK (mock output above) * 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. N/A * 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. OK * MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. N/A * 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. N/A * MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. OK * 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. N/A * 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. OK * MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. OK * MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. OK * MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). OK * MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. OK * MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. OK * 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). N/A * 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. N/A * MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A * MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A * MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). N/A * MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. N/A * MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} N/A * MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. N/A * 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. N/A * 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. OK * MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). OK * MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. OK * SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. NO * SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. N/A * SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. OK (mock output above) * SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. OK * SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. OK * SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. N/A * SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A * SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. N/A * SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. N/A Rafi: same comments as for the other review: the package looks good, the only thing I'd like to see is a LICENSE file included in the rpm, if available upstream. That would take care of the no-docs warning, as well as addressing one of the "SHOULD" items. Also maybe add a comment to explain the "qpid-tools.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/qpid-config: warning.
This package appears to be very useful or even essential for controlling qpidd. Any progress on getting it into Fedora?
Well, it's blocked on python-qmf, which like this one seems to have stalled because Rafael does not seem to be responding to review commentary. If you wish to submit these packages, I'd say just go ahead and do so and close Rafael's tickets as duplicates. Otherwise I'll end up closing them myself soon.
afaict qpid-tools is now subpackage of qpid-cpp