[Bug 807017] Review Request: ovirt-engine - Management server for Open Virtualization

[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=807017

--- Comment #14 from Juan Hernández <juan.hernandez at redhat.com> 2012-04-12 09:28:22 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Out of the rpmlint warnings, these looks suspicious:

I can explain the reasons for those errors:

> ovirt-engine.noarch: E: non-executable-script
> /usr/share/ovirt-engine/scripts/vds_installer.py 0644L /usr/bin/python

This is script is not designed to run in the Fedora machine where it is
installed: it is to be downloaded (via web) by other machines that will then
execute it. So I think that it is better to have it without execution
permissions.

> ovirt-engine-log-collector.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
> /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sos/plugins/postgresql.py
> ovirt-engine-log-collector.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
> /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sos/plugins/jboss.py

These are SOS plugins and they have execution permission and no shebang, as all
the other SOS plugins.

> There are a lot of other warnings, but I can't see any of them
> being problems.  eg. lots of complaints about "dangling symlinks"
> but they all appear to be satisfied by Required packages, so they
> wouldn't be a real problem (unless the dependent packages change ...)

This is a general issue with rpmlint, I thoroughly checked that the symlinks
are correct.

> We had a discussion on IRC about the version and release fields.
> Currently they are:
> 
> Version: %{upstream_version}
> Release: 10.%{upstream_release}%{?dist}
> 
> The usual rule is that "version belongs to upstream and release
> belongs to Fedora", which would imply:
> 
> Version: %{upstream_version}.%{upstream_release}
> Release: 10.%{?dist}

I also had this discussion (with myself). At the end I came to the conclusion
that the "_0001" part of the upstream version number matches what in Fedora we
call a post-release (see [1]). If the upstream project increases this correctly
when they do new post-releases then it can go safely in the "Version" tag, as
you suggest. However there is no history of upstream releases (this is the
first one) so I can't be sure upstream is going to increase it correctly, so I
decided to put it in the "Release" tag to be on the safe side.

That said, I am pretty sure next upstream release will be 3.1.x, so this won't
be a problem.

I don't have anything against doing this change. Just let me know what you
prefer.

> I don't think this is a blocker, but it would be interesting
> to see what you think about making this change.

Thanks again!

[1]
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Post-Release_packages

-- 
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.