Bug 867801 - Review Request: dmlite-plugins-s3 - S3 plugin for dmlite
Summary: Review Request: dmlite-plugins-s3 - S3 plugin for dmlite
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Adrien Devresse
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2012-10-18 10:17 UTC by Ricardo Rocha
Modified: 2012-12-20 16:10 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2012-12-20 16:10:30 UTC
adev88: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Ricardo Rocha 2012-10-18 10:17:42 UTC
Spec URL: http://rocha.web.cern.ch/rocha/fedora/dmlite-plugins-s3.spec
SRPM URL: http://rocha.web.cern.ch/rocha/fedora/dmlite-plugins-s3-0.4.0-1.src.rpm
This package provides the S3 plugin for dmlite. It provides access to data stored in a S3 cloud provider from the DPM namespace.

Comment 2 Adrien Devresse 2012-10-25 20:41:56 UTC
I take care of this.

Comment 3 Adrien Devresse 2012-10-25 21:08:56 UTC
First review :

OK: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review.

dmlite-plugins-s3.src: W: invalid-url Source0: dmlite-plugins-s3-0.4.0.tar.gz
dmlite-plugins-s3.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.4.0-1 ['0.4.0-1.el5.centos', '0.4.0-1.centos']
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

	-> minor warnings, related to SVN

OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. 
OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines .
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. 

	-> Apache License 2.0

OK: 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: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. 
OK: 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: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. 

		-> validated with mock on EL5 
		-> validated on EL6 : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4627030
		-> validated on rawhide : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4626971

OK: 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: 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: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
OK: 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. 
OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
N/A: 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: 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: 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)
OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. 
OK: Each package must consistently use macros. 
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content. 
N/A: 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: 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: Static libraries must be in a -static package. 
N/A: Development files must be in a -devel package. 
N/A: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
N/A: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.
N/A: 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: 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: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

OK: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. 
OK: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
OK: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.

		Done with mock for EL5 
		Done with koji for rawhide
		Done with koji for EL6

OK: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
OK: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
N/A: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. 
OK: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. 
N/A: 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: 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: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.

Package following exactly the same schema than the other dmlite plugins of Ricardo, and which is accordingly already very good =)

Nothing to say about it, Package accepted.

Comment 4 Ricardo Rocha 2012-10-25 21:38:05 UTC
Thanks Adrien!

Comment 5 Ricardo Rocha 2012-10-25 21:38:44 UTC
New Package SCM Request
Package Name: dmlite-plugins-s3
Short Description: S3 plugin for dmlite
Owners: rocha
Branches: el5 el6 f17 f18

Comment 6 Gwyn Ciesla 2012-10-26 11:27:50 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2012-10-26 14:22:07 UTC
dmlite-plugins-s3-0.4.0-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5.

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2012-10-26 14:22:25 UTC
dmlite-plugins-s3-0.4.0-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2012-10-26 14:22:37 UTC
dmlite-plugins-s3-0.4.0-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2012-10-26 14:22:50 UTC
dmlite-plugins-s3-0.4.0-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2012-10-26 18:36:19 UTC
dmlite-plugins-s3-0.4.0-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2012-12-20 16:10:32 UTC
dmlite-plugins-s3-0.4.0-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.