Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: imvirt - Detects several virtualizations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=575480
Summary: Review Request: imvirt - Detects several virtualizations Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: msuchy@redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: ---
SPEC: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/imvirt/imvirt.spec SRPM: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/imvirt/imvirt-0.9.0-pre1.el6.src.rpm
Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2065370
rpmlint is ... $ rpmlint /home/msuchy/rpmbuild/SRPMS/imvirt-0.9.0-pre1.el6.src.rpm imvirt.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) virtualizations -> conceptualizations, visualizations, conceptualization imvirt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualization -> actualization, visualization, conceptualization imvirt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US VMware -> Firmware, Stemware, Vaporware imvirt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Xen -> Xe, En, Xes imvirt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualized -> ritualized, actualized, virtual imvirt.src: W: invalid-url Source0: imvirt-0.9.0-pre1.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Which shoul all be OK.
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=575480
Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pahan@hubbitus.info changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pahan@hubbitus.info
--- Comment #1 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pahan@hubbitus.info 2010-03-21 06:35:27 EDT --- Source is not URL and no comments why and how get it.
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=575480
--- Comment #2 from Miroslav Suchý msuchy@redhat.com 2010-03-21 08:36:23 EDT --- Fixed. Spec and srpm is on same location.
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=575480
Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |steve.traylen@cern.ch AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |steve.traylen@cern.ch Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch 2010-03-21 12:07:09 EDT --- Hi Miroslav,
First I think its much easier for reviewers if you always bump the release numbers during the review.
Here's a review:
Review: imvirt Date: 21st March 2011 Mock Build: F14, x86_64 builds.
* YES: rpmlint output rpmlint SPECS/imvirt.spec RPMS/x86_64/imvirt-* SRPMS/imvirt-0.9.0-pre1.fc14.src.rpm imvirt.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) virtualizations -> conceptualizations, visualizations, actualization imvirt.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualization -> actualization, visualization, contextualization imvirt.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualized -> ritualized, actualized, virtual imvirt.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) virtualizations -> conceptualizations, visualizations, actualization imvirt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualization -> actualization, visualization, contextualization imvirt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualized -> ritualized, actualized, virtual 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
All of these words are in very common usage within this context. They will become words soon enough.
* YES: Named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. * YES: spec file name same as base package %{name}. * NO: Packaging Guidelines.
The Source tar ball is imvirt-0.9.0-pre1.tar.gz which is presumably a pre-release to 0.9.0. This needs to be handled in the release. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageNamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages
* YES: Approved license in .spec file. GPLv2+ * COMMENT: License on Source code. CLearly licensed this way. * YES: Include LICENSE file or similar if it exist. COPYFILE file present. * YES: Written in American English. * YES: Spec file legible. * YES: Included source must match upstream source. $ md5sum imvirt-0.9.0-pre1.tar.gz ../SOURCES/imvirt-0.9.0-pre1.tar.gz 698d022b778aaf0d07ba67fa357da464 imvirt-0.9.0-pre1.tar.gz 698d022b778aaf0d07ba67fa357da464 ../SOURCES/imvirt-0.9.0-pre1.tar.gz
Is the Source URL possible to define exactly the example here? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Sourceforge.net
* YES: Build on one architecture. * YES: Not building on an architecture must highlighted. * YES: Build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. * YES: Handle locales properly. * YES: ldconfig must be called on shared libs. * YES: No bundled copies of system libraries. * YES: Package must state why relocatable if relocatable. * YES: A package must own all directories that it creates * YES: No duplicate files in %files listings. * YES: Permissions on files must be set properly. %defattr * YES: %clean section contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). * YES: Each package must consistently use macros. * YES: The package must contain code, or permissable content. * YES: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. No large docs. * YES: %doc must not affect the runtime of the application. * YES: Header files must be in a -devel package. NO headers. * YES: Static libraries must be in a -static package. No statics. * YES: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' No pkgconfig * YES: Then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. No .sos * YES: devel packages must require the exact base package None * YES: No .la libtool archives None * YES: GUI apps should have %{name}.desktop file No gui * YES: No files or directories already owned by other packages. None are. * YES: %install must run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). It does. * YES: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. Yes.
So just handling of the fact this is a pre-release and if you can change the URL do so.
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=575480
--- Comment #4 from Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch 2010-03-21 13:21:44 EDT --- I think
Vendor: IBH IT-Service GmbH (http://www.ibh.de/)
should come out.
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=575480
--- Comment #5 from Miroslav Suchý msuchy@redhat.com 2010-03-22 06:12:46 EDT --- SPEC: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/imvirt/ SRPM: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/imvirt/imvirt-0.9.0-0.1.pre1.el6.src.rpm
I fixed that release tag according to guidelines. I removed Vendor tag.
But I did not change Source0 url since that template does not work in this case. I tried http://downloads.sourceforge.net/imvirt/imvirt-0.9.0-pre1.tar.gz http://downloads.sourceforge.net/imvirt/imvirt-0.9.0.tar.gz and both returns 404 not found. So I will stick with that one which works.
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=575480
Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch 2010-03-22 06:26:20 EDT ---
APPROVED but could you add a "-p" to
install -m644 -D ImVirt.pm $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{perl_vendorlib}/ImVirt.pm
post review to preserve the timestamp.
Steve
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=575480
Miroslav Suchý msuchy@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #7 from Miroslav Suchý msuchy@redhat.com 2010-03-22 18:03:36 EDT --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: imvirt Short Description: Detects several virtualizations Owners: msuchy Branches: F-12, F-13, EL-5 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=575480
Kalev Lember kalev@smartlink.ee changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kalev@smartlink.ee
--- Comment #8 from Kalev Lember kalev@smartlink.ee 2010-03-23 02:20:48 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5)
But I did not change Source0 url since that template does not work in this case. I tried http://downloads.sourceforge.net/imvirt/imvirt-0.9.0-pre1.tar.gz http://downloads.sourceforge.net/imvirt/imvirt-0.9.0.tar.gz and both returns 404 not found. So I will stick with that one which works.
Try this one: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/apt-dater/%%7Bname%7D-%%7Bversion%7D-pre1.t...
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=575480
--- Comment #9 from Miroslav Suchý msuchy@redhat.com 2010-03-23 04:32:09 EDT --- that url works. thx kalev.
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=575480
--- Comment #10 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2010-03-23 23:33:50 EDT --- CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).
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=575480
Miroslav Suchý msuchy@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org