Hi,
On 08/23/2011 07:25 AM, Saggi Mizrahi wrote:
> On Tue 23 Aug 2011 07:52:54 AM IDT, Douglas Landgraf wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 08/22/2011 06:34 PM, Dan Kenigsberg wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 06:43:09PM -0400, Douglas Landgraf wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> On 08/22/2011 05:11 PM, Dan Kenigsberg wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 02:33:33PM +0100, Lee Yarwood wrote:
>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello List,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My name is Lee Yarwood and I am a Technical Support Engineer with
>>>>>> Red
>>>>>> Hat currently based over in Farnborough, UK.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've been following the vdsm project internally for some time
now
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> with the release of the public git repo I'd like to start
helping
>>>>>> out
>>>>>> with documentation, unit testing and other maintenance patches
>>>>>> during
>>>>>> the upcoming beta window.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does the team have a central project resource like trac etc that
>>>>>> documents any TODOs like these that I could start looking into?
>>>>>> I'd even
>>>>>> be happy with helping setting this up if required.
>>>>> Hi Lee,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for your message. Unfortunately, we still do not have a
public
>>>>> wiki or any other http existence, though there is one in
>>>>> incubation. Vdsm
>>>>> documentation is gravely missing, so I look forward to getting any
>>>>> help - from and Installation Howto to deeper overviews. Regarding
>>>>> maintenance patches - how about trying out my patches for vdsm for
>>>>> Fedora [1]?
>>>> As Lee, I am here to help. I have a question about Fedora packaging,
>>>> what's the plan to have vdsm officially as Fedora package?
>>>>
>>>> I cannot find any entry here:
>>>>
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb
>>>>
>>>> Am I missing something?
>>>>
>>>> I can offer help to review the package/spec (if needed) to get it
>>>> approved to
>>>> fedora review process [1].
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>>
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/New_package_process_for_existing_contributors
>>>>
>>>>
<
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Fedora&format=fedor...
>>>>
>>> There are no concrete plans, and there is no current person-power to do
>>> that. I'd be pleased if someone takes ownership of vdsm in Fedora and
>>> pulls this through. Apart of my said fixes due to python 2.7, there
>>> sould be plenty of cleanups to the spec, and hopefully a new systemd
>>> service.
>>>
>> Sure, what I can see right now:
>>
>> We will need an URL to download the vdsm packages, like:
>> Source:
http://vdsm.org/sources/vdsm-%{version}.tar.gz
>>
>> Do we have such url?
>>
>> What macros do you guys have in macros.python? Anything special?
>> %include %{_rpmconfigdir}/macros.python
> macros.python is standard macros that come with rpmbuild. They live in
> /usr/lib/rpm/macros.python
> _______________________________________________
Ok, I got, thanks.
I have made additional tests:
rpmlint
============
rpmlint vdsm.spec
vdsm.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: vdsm-%{version}.tar.gz
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings
OK - expected
mock test f16
=========
$ mock -r fedora-16-x86_64 --rebuild vdsm-4.9.0-0.43.gb0f4966.fc15.src.rpm
ls /var/lib/mock/fedora-16-x86_64/result/
build.log vdsm-4.9.0-0.43.gb0f4966.fc16.src.rpm
vdsm-cli-4.9.0-0.43.gb0f4966.fc16.x86_64.rpm
vdsm-hook-faqemu-4.9.0-0.43.gb0f4966.fc16.x86_64.rpm
root.log vdsm-4.9.0-0.43.gb0f4966.fc16.x86_64.rpm
vdsm-debuginfo-4.9.0-0.43.gb0f4966.fc16.x86_64.rpm
vdsm-hook-vhostmd-4.9.0-0.43.gb0f4966.fc16.x86_64.rpm
state.log vdsm-bootstrap-4.9.0-0.43.gb0f4966.fc16.x86_64.rpm
vdsm-debug-plugin-4.9.0-0.43.gb0f4966.fc16.x86_64.rpm
vdsm-reg-4.9.0-0.43.gb0f4966.fc16.x86_64.rpm
OK - worked
Additional questions
==================
Can we remove the "el6" deps and keep just the versions?
Requires: lvm2 >= 2.02.72-8.el6_0.4
Requires: device-mapper-multipath >= 0.4.9-31.el6
Requires: psmisc >= 22.6-15.el6_0.1
Conflicts: selinux-policy-targeted < 3.7.19-80.el6
Thanks
Douglas
Sometimes we depend on specific spin builds that found their way into
rhel, maybe having this generated as part of the configuration process
will be better solution.