This is a re-review for package rename, original name is cura-storage. Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/jsafrane/cura-storage/openlmi-storage.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/jsafrane/cura-storage/openlmi-storage-0.4.0-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: The openlmi-storage package contains CMPI providers for management of storage using Common Information Managemen (CIM) protocol. The providers can be registered in any CMPI-aware CIMOM, both OpenPegasus and SFCB were tested. Fedora Account System Username: jsafrane
I fixed openlmi-mof-register script name, new packages are available at: Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/jsafrane/cura-storage/openlmi-storage.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/jsafrane/cura-storage/openlmi-storage-0.4.0-2.fc17.src.rpm
Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x]: 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 is included in %doc. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/radek/review/869188 -openlmi-storage/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. Python: [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0 (openlmi-storage-0.4.0.tar.gz) [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: openlmi-storage-0.4.0-2.fc19.src.rpm openlmi-storage-0.4.0-2.fc19.noarch.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint openlmi-storage 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- openlmi-storage-0.4.0-2.fc19.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh anaconda cmpi-bindings-pywbem openlmi-providers python(abi) = 2.7 sblim-cmpi-base Provides -------- openlmi-storage-0.4.0-2.fc19.noarch.rpm: cura-storage = 0.4.0-2.fc19 openlmi-storage = 0.4.0-2.fc19 MD5-sum check ------------- https://fedorahosted.org/released/openlmi-storage/openlmi-storage-0.4.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a91bce73b7eb800cc3cb27de8bfed7cf435986832cdc67f4cab578bb1e8fe502 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a91bce73b7eb800cc3cb27de8bfed7cf435986832cdc67f4cab578bb1e8fe502 Built with local dependencies: /home/radek/review/openlmi/openlmi-fan-0.0.10-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm /home/radek/review/openlmi/openlmi-providers-0.0.10-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm /home/radek/review/openlmi/openlmi-service-0.0.10-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm /home/radek/review/openlmi/openlmi-powermanagement-0.0.10-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm /home/radek/review/openlmi/openlmi-account-0.0.10-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm /home/radek/review/openlmi/openlmi-providers-devel-0.0.10-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm Generated by fedora-review 0.3.0 (c78e275) last change: 2012-09-24 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 869188 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -L openlmi/
Please make dependency on openlmi-providers versioned (at least 0.0.10 is required for those registration scripts). No serious issues found, setting fedora-review+.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: openlmi-storage Short Description: CIM providers for storage management Owners: jsafrane Branches: f17 f18 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
openlmi-storage-0.4.0-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openlmi-storage-0.4.0-2.fc18
openlmi-storage-0.4.0-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openlmi-storage-0.4.0-2.fc17
openlmi-storage-0.4.0-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.
openlmi-storage-0.4.0-2.fc18, konkretcmpi-0.8.7-7.fc18, openlmi-networking-0.0.5-3.fc18, openlmi-providers-0.0.12-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.