[Bug 707199] Review Request: openstack-nova - OpenStack Compute (nova)
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Jun 29 20:14:03 UTC 2011
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=707199
--- Comment #8 from Matt Domsch <matt_domsch at dell.com> 2011-06-29 16:14:01 EDT ---
MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms
the build produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1]
= done for spec only; once spec is updated to match guidelines
more closely, will perform this step.
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines .
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in
the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2]
= Per convention, this package should be called 'openstack-nova'.
Name tag must be changed to this.
MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
= in review here
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license
=nd meet the Licensing Guidelines .
* Apache 2.0 is acceptable.
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the
actual license. [3]
= 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.[4]
= needs work. LICENSE file present in two of the 10 subpackages
only. It must be added to the rest.
MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
= OK
MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
= 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.
= Needs work. URL there doesn't work, must provide an explicit
bzr-versioned URL it seems.
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary
rpms on at least one primary architecture. [7]
= OK on x86_64 (building noarch)
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
= N/A
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. [8]
= N/A
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.
= OK. Some BRs are missing that would be beneficial but which do
not block the build, including python-carrot, python-mox,
python-suds, m2crypto, bpython, python-memcached, python-migrate
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by
using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly
forbidden.[9]
= 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. [10]
= N/A
MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
= OK
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. [12]
= N/A
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. [13]
= OK
MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the
spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in
specific situations)[14]
= needs work. %{_datarootdir}/nova/setup_iptables.sh appeared
twice by nature of directory is listed, as well as this specific file.
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables
should be set with executable permissions, for example. [15]
= needs work. ajaxterm py[co] files are group writeable.
MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
= OK
MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
= 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). [18]
= needs work. -doc subpackage exists. Not set to build
automaticaly though, which it must. Drop the if/then test and
build it unconditionally.
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. [18]
= untested at this time
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19]
= N/A
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20]
= 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. [19]
= N/A
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require
the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires:
%{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} [21]
= N/A
MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these
must be removed in the spec if they are built.[20]
= 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. [22]
= N/A
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. [23]
= OK
MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [24]
= OK
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. [25]
= N/A
SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if
available. [26]
= N/A
SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. = not
done yet, other things to fix first.
SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures. [28]
= OK (noarch)
SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as
described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for
example.
= not done yet
SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is
vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine
sanity. [29]
= needs work. Specifically, calling rpmquery from inside
%post is not allowed. Database upgrade should be an
application-specific step, not an installtime step.
SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency. [21]
= OK
SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their
usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be
placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg
itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or
gdb. [30]
= N/A
SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin,
/sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which
provides the file instead of the file itself. [31]
= OK
SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If
it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.[32]
= N/A
Additional points:
* see how to properly do release tags using bzr in the release field
* remove Distribution, Packager, Vendor tags
* Group: tag should be Applications/System even in the top-level
package
* consider defining %{shortname} to 'nova', use consistently
throughout.
* Consider other text in the description field. e.g. the main package use:
OpenStack Compute (codename Nova) is open source software designed to
provision and manage large networks of virtual machines, creating a
redundant and scalable cloud computing platform. It gives you the
software, control panels, and APIs required to orchestrate a cloud,
including running instances, managing networks, and controlling access
through users and projects. OpenStack Compute strives to be both
hardware and hypervisor agnostic, currently supporting a variety of
standard hardware configurations and seven major hypervisors.
and in the top of each subpackage, use:
OpenStack Compute (codename Nova) is open source software designed to
provision and manage large networks of virtual machines, creating a
redundant and scalable cloud computing platform.
then the package-specific one-liner.
[27]
* In Summary lines, s/nova/OpenStack Compute/'
* in %setup, use %setup -q -n %{shortname}-%{version}
* uncomment all %postun sections, use this template:
if [ "$1" -ge 1 ] ; then
/sbin/service %{shortname}-api condrestart > /dev/null 2>&1 || :
/sbin/service %{shortname}-direct-api condrestart > /dev/null 2>&1 || :
fi
* add an initial changelog line
--
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.
More information about the package-review
mailing list