Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/cfeist/pcs/pcs.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/cfeist/pcs/pcs-0.9.0-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Command Line Interface for configuration pacemaker & corosync.
1. python_sitelib macro is not necessary in Fedora - please remove it 2. Shouldn't group be in clustering? 3. BuildRoot is not necessary in Fedora - please remove it 4. clean section is not necessary in Fedora - please remove it 5. Why is there a %doc with no content? 6. A copyright isn't valid in the header of a SPEC file and may conflict. The license of the spec file is governed by the CLA. 7. %{python_sitelib}/pcs/* is an unowned directory Once you sort those things out, I'll do a MUST analysis. Please take care to update the Release field to 2 and the changelog before posting new spec/rpm. Regards -steve
1. Done 2. I put it in System Environment/Base because corosync and pacemaker are in System Environment/Base & System Environment/Daemons respectively. I don't believe a Clustering group exists. 3. Done 4. Done 5. Removed 6. Removed 7. Fixed New package and .spec http://people.redhat.com/cfeist/pcs/pcs-0.9.0-2.fc16.src.rpm http://people.redhat.com/cfeist/pcs/pcs.spec
[PASS] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1] [root@beast SRPMS]# rpmlint pcs-0.9.0-2.fc16.src.rpm pcs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US corosync -> corrosion 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. [root@beast noarch]# rpmlint pcs-0.9.0-2.fc16.noarch.rpm pcs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US corosync -> corrosion pcs.noarch: W: no-documentation pcs.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcs 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Ignore spelling complaint. (Although capitalizing Corosync may fix it..) I would recommend requesting upstream move the COPYING file from the python directory to the top level directory of the tarball. Then use a %doc COPYING directive. This won't block the review, but see further down - an included license must be use a %doc directive. Please file a bug with the upstream to develop a "pcs" man page. All binaries should have manual pages. This won't block the review. [PASS] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . [PASS] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] . [PASS] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . [PASS] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . [PASS] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [3] COPYING file indicates gplv2. The License field in PKG-INFO should be filled out. Please file a bug with upstream for this issue. [FAIL] 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.[4] Need a %doc section for COPYING [PASS] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5] [PASS] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6] [PASS] 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. [root@beast SOURCES]# sha256sum pcs-0.9.0.tar.gz 5fb022ed181db44e720ddfaa6adcbc99ccc408de94f12a1d33a9a5d1ae325aab pcs-0.9.0.tar.gz [root@beast SPECS]# wget http://people.redhat.com/cfeist/pcs/pcs-0.9.0.tar.gz --2012-01-23 08:18:41-- http://people.redhat.com/cfeist/pcs/pcs-0.9.0.tar.gz Resolving people.redhat.com... 10.5.19.30 Connecting to people.redhat.com|10.5.19.30|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 13823 (13K) [application/x-gzip] Saving to: “pcs-0.9.0.tar.gz” 100%[======================================>] 13,823 49.7K/s in 0.3s 2012-01-23 08:18:42 (49.7 KB/s) - “pcs-0.9.0.tar.gz” saved [13823/13823] [root@beast SPECS]# sha256sum pcs-0.9.0.tar.gz 5fb022ed181db44e720ddfaa6adcbc99ccc408de94f12a1d33a9a5d1ae325aab pcs-0.9.0.tar.gz [PASS] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [7] [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. [8] [FAIL] 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. See python review in next comment [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.[9] [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. [10] [N/A] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11] [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. [12] [PASS] 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. [13] [PASS] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)[14] [PASS] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. [15] [PASS] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16] [PASS] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17] [N/A] 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). [18] [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. [18] [N/A] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19] [N/A] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20] [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. [19] [N/A] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} [21] [N/A] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.[20] [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. [22] [PASS] 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. [23] [PASS] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [24]
Python review from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python [FAIL] To build a package containing python2 files, you need to have BuildRequires: python2-devel [PASS] Must: Python eggs must be built from source. They cannot simply drop an egg from upstream into the proper directory. (See prebuilt binaries Guidelines for details) [PASS] Must: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [N/A] Must: When building a compat package, it must install using easy_install -m so it won't conflict with the main package. [N/A] Must: When building multiple versions (for a compat package) one of the packages must contain a default version that is usable via "import MODULE" with no prior setup.
Chris, The review is completed. Please resolve the FAILs and I'll approve the package. Regards -steve
Steve, I update the package, all of the FAIL's should be fixed now. http://people.redhat.com/cfeist/pcs/pcs.spec http://people.redhat.com/cfeist/pcs/pcs-0.9.1-1.fc16.src.rpm
APPROVED. Please submit a SCM request.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: pcs Short Description: Pacemaker Configuration System Owners: cfeist Branches: InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Chris, Shouldn't this be closed as it is merged?
Closing as this is in F17.