Spec URL: http://goodsquishy.com/downloads/packstack-review-request/packstack.spec SRPM URL: http://goodsquishy.com/downloads/packstack-review-request/openstack-packstack-2012.2.1-1dev188.fc17.src.rpm Description: I have created packaging for packstack that I would like reviewed https://github.com/fedora-openstack/packstack Packstack is a utility to install a distributed openstack. It installs openstack via ssh using puppet modules. Fedora Account System Username: derekh
[!]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: make i.e. remove make from buildrequires [!]: 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 is included in %doc. i.e. add "%doc LICENSE" to %files [!]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. Note: packstack.spec should be openstack-packstack.spec second line of description. s/variouse/various/ third line of description has a trailing space s/186/188 in changelog There are lots of hidden files in the tarball, including .git/ dirs There are lots of scripts identified as such by the first line being #!/usr/bin/env ... that are not executable For example: parseyaml_spec.rb If they're not meant to be executed directly, then you could remove the first line upstream, or in the spec %prep do: find nova -name \*.rb -exec sed -i '/\/usr\/bin\/env ruby/{d;q}' {} +
Thanks Pádraig New versions of srpm uploaded to http://goodsquishy.com/downloads/packstack-review-request/197/openstack-packstack-2012.2.1-1dev197.fc17.src.rpm and spec http://goodsquishy.com/downloads/packstack-review-request/197/openstack-packstack.spec rpmlint now reports 3 errors, these are 3 script templates that are part of the puppet modules, the templates should not be executable openstack-packstack.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/packstack/puppet/modules/mysql/templates/mysqlbackup.sh.erb 0644L /bin/sh openstack-packstack.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/packstack/puppet/modules/nova/files/nova-novncproxy.init 0644L /bin/bash openstack-packstack.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/packstack/puppet/modules/openstack/templates/test_nova.sh.erb 0644L /bin/bash
There are some rpmlint warnings about template scripts that are not a+x That's fine IMHO as they're templates [x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [-]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [ ]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x]: 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 is included in %doc. [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters. [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Package is not relocatable. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [x]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [-]: 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. [x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [-]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0 (packstack-2012.2.1dev197.tar.gz) [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: openstack-packstack Short Description: OpenStack Install Utility Owners: derekh Branches: f17 f18 el6 InitialCC: pbrady
Requested package name openstack-packstack doesn't match bug summary packstack, please correct.
Git done (by process-git-requests).
openstack-packstack-2012.2.1-1dev197.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openstack-packstack-2012.2.1-1dev197.fc18
openstack-packstack-2012.2.1-1dev197.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.
(In reply to comment #9) > openstack-packstack-2012.2.1-1dev197.fc18 For pre-releases, release field should start with 0 e.g. 0.1.git197 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#PreReleasePackages
I'll fix this ASAP, since this is still in updates-testing will it be ok to just change -Release: 1dev%{git_revno}%{?dist} +Release: 0.1dev%{git_revno}%{?dist} If this isn't going to work, I'll do an upstream release and update packaging
(In reply to comment #11) > -Release: 1dev%{git_revno}%{?dist} > +Release: 0.1dev%{git_revno}%{?dist} > > If this isn't going to work, I'll do an upstream release and update packaging Even if testing only, higher ENVR is in the wild, so you must bump either Epoch or Version.
openstack-packstack-2012.2.2-0.1.dev205.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openstack-packstack-2012.2.2-0.1.dev205.fc18
openstack-packstack-2012.2.2-0.2.dev211.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openstack-packstack-2012.2.2-0.2.dev211.fc18
openstack-packstack-2012.2.2-0.4.dev315.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openstack-packstack-2012.2.2-0.4.dev315.fc18
openstack-packstack-2012.2.2-0.5.dev318.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openstack-packstack-2012.2.2-0.5.dev318.fc18
openstack-packstack-2012.2.2-0.6.dev345.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openstack-packstack-2012.2.2-0.6.dev345.fc18
openstack-packstack-2012.2.2-0.8.dev406.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openstack-packstack-2012.2.2-0.8.dev406.fc18
openstack-packstack-2012.2.2-1.0.dev408.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openstack-packstack-2012.2.2-1.0.dev408.fc18
openstack-packstack-2012.2.3-0.1.dev454.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openstack-packstack-2012.2.3-0.1.dev454.fc18