[Bug 511246] Review Request: pacemaker - cman/rgmanager alternative

[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=511246


Fabio Massimo Di Nitto <fdinitto at redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+




--- Comment #10 from Fabio Massimo Di Nitto <fdinitto at redhat.com>  2009-07-30 03:28:53 EDT ---
rpmlint output:

pacemaker.src:184: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/ocf
pacemaker.src:185: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/ocf/resource.d
pacemaker.src:186: E: hardcoded-library-path in
/usr/lib/ocf/resource.d/pacemaker
pacemaker.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 29, tab: line 3)
pacemaker.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/pengine hacluster
pacemaker.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/pengine haclient
pacemaker.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/pengine 0750
pacemaker.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/heartbeat/crm hacluster
pacemaker.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/heartbeat/crm haclient
pacemaker.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/heartbeat/crm 0750
pacemaker.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/run/crm hacluster
pacemaker.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/run/crm haclient
pacemaker.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/run/crm 0750
pacemaker-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit
/usr/lib64/libcrmcluster.so.1.0.0 exit at GLIBC_2.2.5
pacemaker-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libpengine.so.3.0.0
exit at GLIBC_2.2.5
pacemaker-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libcib.so.1.0.1
exit at GLIBC_2.2.5

All of the above have been discussed and properly explained. I have no
objections to those. Might be nice to fix the mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs that
was recently introduced but for sure it's not a blocker.

OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License (GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+)
OK - License field in spec matches
See below - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
See below - Sources match upstream md5sum:
0737aaf01c73868fe006b4880ef2776e  c9120a53a6ae.tar.gz
0737aaf01c73868fe006b4880ef2776e  c9120a53a6ae.tar.gz.1
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Package has correct buildroot.
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install.

OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun.
OK - .so files in -devel subpackage.
OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}.
OK - .la files are removed.

OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1565197
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
OK - Package obey's FHS standard (note execptions have been discussed and
agreed upon).
OK - final provides and requires are sane.

SHOULD Items:

OK - Should build in mock.
NOTE: My mock doesn't work. Tested with koji scratch build and local build (see
logs above)
OK - Should build on all supported archs.
(as above)
OK - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.
OK - Should have dist tag.
OK - Should package latest version.
OK - Should not use file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or
/usr/sbin.

Good to go.

-- 
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.