Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: openstack-novaclient - Client for OpenStack Nova API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731980
Summary: Review Request: openstack-novaclient - Client for OpenStack Nova API Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: markmc@redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: ---
This is a python API and command line client for OpenStack's Compute Service (Nova) API. There are two sub-packages - python-novaclient and openstack-novaclient-doc - as well as the main package.
It is required by openstack-nova, see bug #707199
Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/markmc/openstack-fedora-specs/06604ba9/SPECS/openstac... SRPM URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=3285697&name=openstack... Scratch Koji Build URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3285696 Fedora 16 yum repo URL: http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/markmc/openstack/fedora-openstack.repo
Description: This is a client for the OpenStack Nova API. There's a Python API (the novaclient module), and a command-line script (nova). Each implements 100% of the OpenStack Nova API.
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=731980
Mark McLoughlin markmc@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |707199
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=731980
Chris Lalancette clalance@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |clalance@redhat.com AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |clalance@redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Chris Lalancette clalance@redhat.com 2011-08-19 11:42:48 EDT --- I'll review this one.
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=731980
--- Comment #2 from Chris Lalancette clalance@redhat.com 2011-08-19 13:18:44 EDT --- Mark, from a high-level perspective, why have the 2 subpackages (openstack-novaclient and python-novaclient)? Since the main package only contains a single executable that is python anyway, what about mashing the two together into just python-novaclient? This has the added benefit of matching the upstream tarball.
rpmlint output:
[clalance@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint /home/clalance/rpmbuild/SRPMS/openstack-novaclient-2.6.1-0.2.83bzr.fc14.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [clalance@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint /home/clalance/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/openstack-novaclient-2.6.1-0.2.83bzr.fc14.noarch.rpm openstack-novaclient.noarch: W: no-documentation openstack-novaclient.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nova 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. [clalance@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint /home/clalance/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/python-novaclient-2.6.1-0.2.83bzr.fc14.noarch.rpm python-novaclient.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python-httplib2 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. [clalance@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint /home/clalance/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/openstack-novaclient-doc-2.6.1-0.2.83bzr.fc14.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
The error in python is a false-positive, and the two warnings are unfortunate but not showstoppers.
===========================================================================
In the description, there is a bit of a fragment:
This package contains command-line script.
Maybe should be:
This package contains the command-line script.
(but that is minor)
===========================================================================
Checklist
[ OK ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package [ OK ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [ OK ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [...] [ OK ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines [ OK ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license [ OK ] 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 must be included in %doc - clalance: while the LICENSE file is in the git checkout, it does not make it into the upstream tarball, so this is OK. [ OK ] MUST: Packages must not contain pre-built binaries or libraries [ OK ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [ OK ] MUST: The spec file for the package must be legible. [ OK ] MUST: 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 ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture [ N/A ] MUST: 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 ] MUST: Packages must not have a BuildRoot tag as of Fedora-10 [ ?? ] MUST: 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. - clalance: Mark, is python-devel really a BuildRequires? A quick look through the source seems to indicate that it is pure python, but maybe I am missing something. [ OK ] MUST: 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 ] MUST: 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 ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden [ N/A ] MUST: 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. [ N/A ] MUST: 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. [ ] MUST: 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. [ ] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [ ] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. [ OK ] MUST: Packages must not have a %clean section. [ OK ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [ OK ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [ N/A ] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [ N/A ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [ N/A ] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [ N/A ] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [ N/A ] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [ N/A ] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [ N/A ] MUST: 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 ] MUST: 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 ] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
============================================================================
Overall, the outstanding questions are: 1) Why the split between openstack-novaclient and python-novaclient? 2) Minor nit in the summary. 3) Is python-devel really a BuildRequires?
It looks fine otherwise.
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=731980
--- Comment #3 from Mark McLoughlin markmc@redhat.com 2011-08-22 08:25:45 EDT --- Thanks Chris!
(In reply to comment #2)
Overall, the outstanding questions are:
- Why the split between openstack-novaclient and python-novaclient?
Yeah, I think that's a fair point - I've removed the split now
- Minor nit in the summary.
Fixed
- Is python-devel really a BuildRequires?
The guidelines suggest that it's needed:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
But I've looked closely, and I can't see any reason for it - all we need is python-setuptools
New version:
Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/markmc/openstack-fedora-specs/ce087581/SPECS/python-n... SRPM URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=3291190&name=openstack... Scratch Koji Build URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3291189 Fedora 16 yum repo URL: http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/markmc/openstack/fedora-openstack.repo
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=731980
Chris Lalancette clalance@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Chris Lalancette clalance@redhat.com 2011-08-22 10:56:33 EDT ---
New version:
Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/markmc/openstack-fedora-specs/ce087581/SPECS/python-n...
There is one more minor nit in that SPEC, in that you can now drop the -n python-novaclient-%{version} from %setup. But I won't hold it up for that, it would just be nice to fix when you commit.
APPROVED
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=731980
Mark McLoughlin markmc@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|clalance@redhat.com |markmc@redhat.com Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |openstack-novaclient - |python-novaclient - Python |Client for OpenStack Nova |API and CLI for OpenStack |API |Nova Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #5 from Mark McLoughlin markmc@redhat.com 2011-08-22 11:12:26 EDT --- Thanks Chris!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-novaclient Short Description: Python API and CLI for OpenStack Nova Owners: markmc Branches: f16 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=731980
--- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limb@jcomserv.net 2011-08-22 14:32:25 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
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=731980
Mark McLoughlin markmc@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2011-08-23 03:34:17
--- Comment #7 from Mark McLoughlin markmc@redhat.com 2011-08-23 03:34:17 EDT --- Built now in rawhide and f16
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=731980
Matt Domsch matt_domsch@dell.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |matt_domsch@dell.com
--- Comment #8 from Matt Domsch matt_domsch@dell.com 2011-08-29 14:14:15 EDT --- Mark, can you branch for el6? It needs
-BuildRequires: python-sphinx +%{?fedora:BuildRequires: python-sphinx >= 1.0} +%{?el6:BuildRequires: python-sphinx10}
like all the other packages. After that, it still fails building docs, but the rest builds.
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=731980
--- Comment #9 from Mark McLoughlin markmc@redhat.com 2011-08-29 17:01:48 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8)
Mark, can you branch for el6?
Yep, feel free
It needs
-BuildRequires: python-sphinx +%{?fedora:BuildRequires: python-sphinx >= 1.0} +%{?el6:BuildRequires: python-sphinx10}
like all the other packages. After that, it still fails building docs, but the rest builds.
My first instinct would be to not clutter the the specs with conditionals, but instead just make the change on the epel6 branch and then git merge changes from f16 later as needed
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=731980
Matt Domsch matt_domsch@dell.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #10 from Matt Domsch matt_domsch@dell.com 2011-08-30 11:14:58 EDT --- Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: python-novaclient New Branches: el6 Owners: markmc
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=731980
--- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla limb@jcomserv.net 2011-08-30 11:35:35 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla