Spec URL: http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/aeolus/imagefactory/1.1.3/tarball/imagefactory-plugins.spec SRPM URL: http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/aeolus/imagefactory/1.1.3/packages/source/imagefactory-plugins-1.1.3-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: This package is a collection of OS and cloud plugins for the Image Factory cloud system image generation tool. Fedora Account System Username: imcleod
1. Please replace %define with %global 2. Add BR python2-devel
Requires: imagefactory Requires: imagefactory-plugins And do all subpackages have no explicit version requires of main package?
Christopher, I have made the changes in Comment 1, pushed them upstream, rebuilt the SRPM and SPEC files and placed them in the same URLs in the original request above. I have not incremented the release tag as these packages have not yet been formally built and released "into the wild". Regarding Comment 2, at present the subpackages do not have an explicit version requires. What we really care about is the version of the internal plugin API implemented by the core imagefactory package. We'd prefer to maintain the ability to change the core package version independently of the API version or versions that it implements. After discussing it with a few people I'd like to suggest the SPEC changes in this commit as a way of managing this going forward: https://github.com/aeolusproject/imagefactory/commit/8beca63a6cc2589f21a3cbcc364906af023cb85f This should allow us to support multiple API versions at once and, if the time comes, retire support for older verisons, while having the requirement for a particular API version properly represented in the plugin sub packages (or any hypothetical externally developed plugins). If this is acceptable I will merge the change upstream in preparation for the Fedora build. I'm open to other approaches.
OK. Although I don't know too much about your project, I think you've found a way to solve the problem. SO where is the SPEC/SRPM after your modification? BTW I don't assign it because I have no time in this week, can you wait for a week? Thanks.
Christopher, I'll respin the SPEC/SRPM to reflect the approach described in comment 3. I'd like to try to get this approved and built as soon as I can, so I may try to ask another reviewer to have a look. However, if I'm unsuccessful, I'd be grateful if you could do the review whenever you have time. Thanks!
The API version approach looks sane to me too. Christopher, if you're still busy I can take over the review, but otherwise, don't mind me. :)
(In reply to Matthew Miller from comment #6) > The API version approach looks sane to me too. Christopher, if you're still > busy I can take over the review, but otherwise, don't mind me. :) Sorry, please take it ;) Thanks!
Okay. Now, about those respun specfiles / srpms.... :)
Matt, I've "updated in place" the files at the links in the bug description. Back at you with a "NEEDINFO" :-)
Review passed. Package Review ============== Legend: [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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: Using prebuilt rpms. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: 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 complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mattdm/tmp/997654-imagefactory- plugins/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Note: Cannot unpack rpms (using --prebuilt?) [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Re-using old build in mock [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: imagefactory-plugins Short Description: A collection of OS and cloud plugins for the Image Factory system image generation tool. Owners: imcleod Branches: f18 f19 f20 el6 InitialCC: imcleod
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Don't forget to close the bug if you don't use Bodhi.