Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: virt-v2v - Convert a virtual machine to run on KVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=521319
Summary: Review Request: virt-v2v - Convert a virtual machine to run on KVM Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mbooth@redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: ---
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/mbooth/virt-v2v/virt-v2v.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/mbooth/virt-v2v/virt-v2v-0.1.0-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: virt-v2v is a tool for converting virtual machines to use the KVM hypervisor. It modifies both the virtual machine image and its associated libvirt metadata. virt-v2v will also configure a guest to use VirtIO drivers if possible.
virt-v2v also includes the virt-snapshot tool, which will modify a guest to use snapshot storage, and later commit the snapshot back to the original storage if desired. ---- This is my first Fedora package and I am seeking a sponsor. I am the primary developer of this application. The package currently only builds against dist-f12. I'm targeting EPEL-5, but there are outstanding dependency issues.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=521319
Matthew Booth mbooth@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=521319
Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |rjones@redhat.com AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |rjones@redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com 2009-09-07 05:23:14 EDT --- Taking for review.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=521319
--- Comment #2 from Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com 2009-09-07 11:02:27 EDT --- It builds, but you need to add a libguestfs version dep. The current dep:
BuildRequires: perl(Sys::Guestfs::Lib) >= 1.0.68
doesn't work. It seems that perl() deps are unversioned and therefore rpm will happily accept any version. To make it fail properly on my old version of libguestfs I had to add:
BuildRequires: libguestfs >= 1:1.0.68 ... Requires: libguestfs >= 1:1.0.68
Note also the epoch.
---
After making the above change (and installing the requisite version of libguestfs), I was able to build it locally.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=521319
--- Comment #3 from Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com 2009-09-07 11:08:47 EDT --- Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1660335
rpmlint is silent.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=521319
Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com 2009-09-07 11:20:15 EDT --- + rpmlint output + package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines
Reporter doesn't think the Perl libraries are independently useful, so they don't need to go in a separate package and we don't need to follow the Perl naming guidelines for that too closely.
+ specfile name matches the package base name + package should satisfy packaging guidelines
(See above about Perl packaging guidelines, although the package is broadly correct even for them).
+ license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora + license matches the actual package license + %doc includes license file + spec file written in American English + spec file is legible + upstream sources match sources in the srpm + package successfully builds on at least one architecture
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1660335
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires list all build dependencies
Koji build proves this.
+ %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*
Although commented out at the moment, however this is correct for this package.
n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun + does not use Prefix: /usr + package owns all directories it creates + no duplicate files in %files + %defattr line + %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT + consistent use of macros + package must contain code or permissible content n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + files marked %doc should not affect package n/a header files should be in -devel n/a static libraries should be in -static n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig' n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base n/a packages should not contain libtool .la files n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file + packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages + %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc. + filenames must be valid UTF-8
Optional:
+ if there is no license file, packager should query upstream n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if available + reviewer should build the package in mock n/a the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures + review should test the package functions as described n/a scriptlets should be sane n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel + shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or /usr/sbin
========== APPROVED by rjones ==========
The only thing to do is to modify the spec file as in comment 2.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=521319
Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rc040203@freenet.de
--- Comment #5 from Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de 2009-09-07 11:35:22 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2)
It builds, but you need to add a libguestfs version dep. The current dep:
BuildRequires: perl(Sys::Guestfs::Lib) >= 1.0.68
doesn't work. It seems that perl() deps are unversioned
Untrue. perl(..) are referring to a perl-module's version, not to the rpm's or the package's versions.
If a perl-module doesn't carry a version (from Perl's perspective), this perl module's version's rpm-representation, i.e. the perl(..) dep is unversioned.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=521319
--- Comment #6 from Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com 2009-09-07 11:55:20 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5)
(In reply to comment #2)
It builds, but you need to add a libguestfs version dep. The current dep:
BuildRequires: perl(Sys::Guestfs::Lib) >= 1.0.68
doesn't work. It seems that perl() deps are unversioned
Untrue. perl(..) are referring to a perl-module's version, not to the rpm's or the package's versions.
If a perl-module doesn't carry a version (from Perl's perspective), this perl module's version's rpm-representation, i.e. the perl(..) dep is unversioned.
OK, understood. I opened a libguestfs bug to fix this:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=521674
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=521319
--- Comment #7 from Matthew Booth mbooth@redhat.com 2009-09-08 04:36:26 EDT --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: virt-v2v Short Description: Convert a virtual machine to run on KVM Owners: mdbooth Branches: F-11 F-12 EL-5 InitialCC:
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=521319
Matthew Booth mbooth@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=521319
Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kevin@tummy.com
--- Comment #8 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2009-09-09 12:19:33 EDT --- Matthew: I don't see you in the packager group. Is this your first package?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=521319
--- Comment #9 from Matthew Booth mbooth@redhat.com 2009-09-09 12:30:45 EDT --- Yes, it is.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=521319
--- Comment #10 from Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com 2009-09-09 12:50:41 EDT --- So Matt needs sponsorship, is that right?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=521319
--- Comment #11 from Matthew Booth mbooth@redhat.com 2009-09-10 06:00:53 EDT --- I'm now a member of the packager group. Rich is my sponsor.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=521319
--- Comment #12 from Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com 2009-09-11 07:52:47 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8)
Matthew: I don't see you in the packager group. Is this your first package?
Kevin, is there anything else which Matt or I need to do in order to get this package added to CVS? I *think* I've followed all the relevant rules from the wiki...
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=521319
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--- Comment #13 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2009-09-11 16:20:26 EDT --- These are done by hand and occasionally it takes a bit for a human to find the time to run through the queue.
CVS done.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=521319
Mark McLoughlin markmc@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |markmc@redhat.com
--- Comment #14 from Mark McLoughlin markmc@redhat.com 2009-09-21 10:21:40 EDT --- Can we get virtmaint added to cvs commit and bugzilla cc ? Thanks
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: virt-v2v InitialCC: virtmaint
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=521319
--- Comment #15 from Matthew Booth mbooth@redhat.com 2009-09-21 18:26:38 EDT --- Mark,
I'm new to this. Do I have to do anything to make this happen? I don't see any flags set on the BZ, so I guess I do. Any idea what?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=521319
--- Comment #16 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2009-09-21 22:17:28 EDT --- For cvs requests, you need to set the fedora-cvs flag to ?
Since I was already CC'ed here, I went ahead and processed the request. ;) cvs done.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=521319
Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |CURRENTRELEASE
--- Comment #17 from Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com 2010-06-08 09:06:49 EDT --- I'm pretty sure this bug should be closed now since virt-v2v has been in Fedora for quite a long time.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org