[Bug 731966] Review Request: openstack-glance - OpenStack Image Service

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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=731966

--- Comment #3 from Steven Dake <sdake at redhat.com> 2011-08-21 13:50:11 EDT ---
Summary of MUST review items.  One issue blocks fedora-review+, other issues
should be considered by the packager.

(BLOCKER) Steve Traylen recommends that the package be ported to systemd.  This
is not currently required by Fedora or reviewers to enforce this activity.  The
init scripts are not LSB complaint resulting in many errors.  Before this
package can be approved, either the init scripts must be made lsb compliant, or
the package should adopt systemd.  Note systemd may become mandatory in future
versions of Fedora, and packaging today may save you work tomorrow.  If you
need technical help, try contactng Angus Salkeld - he just did some systemd
work for a few other projects we maintain.

NEEDSWORK -> After this package achieves fedora-review-+ please file a bugzilla
to have the package maintainer work with upstream to create man pages for the
missing man pages for binaries.

NEEDSWORK -> After fedora-review-+, please file a bug with upstream requesting
the upstream to release a license file in the software distribution.  Once that
license file is distributed in the binary, please modify the spec file to
distribute this binary.  This is standard practice for open source projects.

NEEDSWORK -> I'd recommend removing the %{shortname} macro and replacing it
with glance.  It makes reading the spec file confusing, and someone will end up
doing this in the future anyway.

NEEDSWORK -> Generally nightly builds should not be used for releasing Fedora
software.  Many upstream projects remove upstream nightly build files in short
periods of time, making it impossible to validate the upstream sources.  Is it
possible to use a stable or unstable release version?

Macros are consistently used, but I'd recommend against using the shortname
macro - it is confusing and adds no value.

The source1 and Source2 init script definitions use %{name} which is confusing
- a maintainer has to figure out what name means.  Better not to use a macro
for this case.  These are just my opinions, so take them for what they are
worth.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.