Spec: http://mo.morsi.org/files/aeolus/aeolus-configure.spec SRPM: http://mo.morsi.org/files/aeolus/aeolus-configure-2.0.1-2.src.rpm Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3215056 Description: Aeolus Configure Puppet Recipe
Spec: http://mo.morsi.org/files/aeolus/aeolus-configure.spec SRPM: http://mo.morsi.org/files/aeolus/aeolus-configure-2.0.1-3.src.rpm Updated Source0 instructions to reflect tagged upstream release
Well, we actually have tarballs now, so we should update this to use the tarballs: http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/aeolus/aeolus-configure/2.0.1/tarball/ rpmlint complains a bit: [clalance@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint /home/clalance/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/aeolus-configure-2.0.1-3.noarch.rpm aeolus-configure.noarch: W: no-documentation aeolus-configure.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/aeolus-configure/modules/aeolus/templates/deltacloud-core 0644L /bin/bash aeolus-configure.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/aeolus-configure/modules/ntp/README aeolus-configure.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary aeolus-cleanup aeolus-configure.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary aeolus-configure aeolus-configure.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary aeolus-node 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings. To shut rpmlint up, I would suggest just doing chmod +x on that deltacloud-core file, and removing the ntp/README file. [ OK ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package [ OK ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [ OK ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [...] [ OK ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines The Source of the package must be the full URL to the released Gem archive See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby#Ruby_Gems http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL [ OK ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines [ FAIL ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license - clalance: there is no license specified in the upstream sources anywhere. We should push a patch to upstream to make the license clear, and also include it in the package. [ N/A ] 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 [ OK ] 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 ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture [ N/A ] 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 [ OK ] 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. [ N/A ] 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: 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. [ OK ] 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 package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [ OK ] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. [ 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). [ OK ] 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. [ OK ] 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: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
Spec: http://mo.morsi.org/files/aeolus/aeolus-configure.spec SRPM: http://mo.morsi.org/files/aeolus/aeolus-configure-2.0.1-4.src.rpm (In reply to comment #2) > Well, we actually have tarballs now, so we should update this to use the > tarballs: > > http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/aeolus/aeolus-configure/2.0.1/tarball/ > Done > rpmlint complains a bit: > > [clalance@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint > aeolus-configure.noarch: E: non-executable-script > /usr/share/aeolus-configure/modules/aeolus/templates/deltacloud-core 0644L > /bin/bash > aeolus-configure.noarch: E: zero-length > /usr/share/aeolus-configure/modules/ntp/README > > To shut rpmlint up, I would suggest just doing chmod +x on that deltacloud-core > file, and removing the ntp/README file. Done. templates/deltacloud-core is now marked as executable Removed the empty ntp/README file > [ OK ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines > The Source of the package must be the full URL to the released Gem archive > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby#Ruby_Gems > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL Done > [ OK ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license > and meet the Licensing Guidelines > [ FAIL ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the > actual license - clalance: there is no license specified in the > upstream sources anywhere. We should push a patch to upstream to make the > license clear, and also include it in the package. Seems to be the case w/ a few of the aeolus components. We should go through and add the license file to them all. We can address this for the next release. Since the license field is correct in the spec file, leaving this as is for now.
Looks OK to me. APPROVED.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: aeolus-configure Short Description: Aeolus Configure Puppet Review Owners: mmorsi Branches: InitialCC:
Err, mistake in description New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: aeolus-configure Short Description: Aeolus Configure Puppet Recipe Owners: mmorsi Branches: InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).