[Bug 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889 --- Comment #46 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- geoipupdate-2.2.1-2.el5, GeoIP-GeoLite-data-2015.04-2.el5, GeoIP-1.6.5-2.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889 --- Comment #45 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- geoipupdate-2.2.1-2.el6, GeoIP-1.6.5-1.el6, GeoIP-GeoLite-data-2015.04-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889 Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||geoipupdate-2.2.1-2.fc22 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2015-04-26 11:45:20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889 --- Comment #43 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- GeoIP-GeoLite-data-2015.04-1.fc20, geoipupdate-2.2.1-2.fc20, GeoIP-1.6.5-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889 --- Comment #44 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- GeoIP-GeoLite-data-2015.04-1.fc21, geoipupdate-2.2.1-2.fc21, GeoIP-1.6.5-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889 --- Comment #42 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- GeoIP-GeoLite-data-2015.04-1.fc22, geoipupdate-2.2.1-2.fc22, GeoIP-1.6.5-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889 --- Comment #38 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- GeoIP-GeoLite-data-2015.04-1.fc21,geoipupdate-2.2.1-2.fc21,GeoIP-1.6.5-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/GeoIP-GeoLite-data-2015.04-1.fc21,geoipupdate-2.2.1-2.fc21,GeoIP-1.6.5-1.fc21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889 --- Comment #39 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- GeoIP-GeoLite-data-2015.04-1.fc22,geoipupdate-2.2.1-2.fc22,GeoIP-1.6.5-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/GeoIP-GeoLite-data-2015.04-1.fc22,geoipupdate-2.2.1-2.fc22,GeoIP-1.6.5-1.fc22 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889 --- Comment #37 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- GeoIP-GeoLite-data-2015.04-1.el6,geoipupdate-2.2.1-2.el6,GeoIP-1.6.5-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/GeoIP-GeoLite-data-2015.04-1.el6,geoipupdate-2.2.1-2.el6,GeoIP-1.6.5-1.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889 --- Comment #36 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- GeoIP-GeoLite-data-2015.04-1.el5,geoipupdate-2.2.1-2.el5,GeoIP-1.6.5-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/GeoIP-GeoLite-data-2015.04-1.el5,geoipupdate-2.2.1-2.el5,GeoIP-1.6.5-1.el5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889 --- Comment #40 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- GeoIP-GeoLite-data-2015.04-1.fc20,geoipupdate-2.2.1-2.fc20,GeoIP-1.6.5-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/GeoIP-GeoLite-data-2015.04-1.fc20,geoipupdate-2.2.1-2.fc20,GeoIP-1.6.5-1.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889 --- Comment #41 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org --- EL-7 ships with GeoIP 1.5.0, which bundles geoipudate. This package would therefore conflict with the EL-7 package if we built it for EPEL-7. So unless something very unusual happens, I think the epel7 branch of this package will have to be retired. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889 Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #34 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org --- Package Change Request == Package Name: geoipupdate New Branches: el5 Owners: philipp pghmcfc EL-5 branch needed for update of GeoIP there: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1158667#c7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889 --- Comment #33 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org --- OK, I've had time to look at this today and here are my thoughts. Firstly, the big change between GeoIP 1.5.x and GeoIP 1.6.x+geoipupdate is that there is no libGeoIPUpdate any more. I was quite concerned about that, because even installing the two new packages would not satisfy a dependency on that library on old systems. However, there doesn't seem to be anything in Fedora that requires it, and I haven't been able to find anything in the wider open source world that uses it either, so it's probably not such a big deal. If the worst comes to the worst and somebody raises a bug on it, we could bundle the library in the GeoIP package by building it from the 1.5.x sources, much like the xz package does for the old liblzma.so.0 library. The other thing missing from the current packages is the cron job for the IPv6 databases. Philip intends to create a new perl script to do this (Comment #29), which could perhaps be based on examples/geolite-mirror-simple.pl from perl-Geo-IP. In the meantime we could go with the last version from the old GeoIP 1.5.x package, packaged up in a new geoipupdate-cron6 package. Regarding the requires/provides/obsoletes, I think these are actually quite simple, and amount to the following: * GeoIP 1.6.x should require geoipdate for F-21, EL-7 and any earlier builds, and not for Rawhide, EL-8 onwards builds/ * geoipupdate does not need any special obsoletes/provides/requires * geoipupdate-cron should obsolete/provide GeoIP-update, and require geoipupdate and crontabs * geoipdate-cron6 should obsolete/provide GeoIP-update6, and require geoipupdate, crontabs and wget (or whatever is needed for the script) I have created some local builds that implement these (close to, but not identical to the Fedora versions): * http://subversion.city-fan.org/repos/cfo-repo/GeoIP/trunk/GeoIP.spec * http://subversion.city-fan.org/repos/cfo-repo/geoipupdate/trunk/geoipupdate.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889
--- Comment #28 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org ---
You can't have noarch sub-packages with %{_isa}-based dependencies, as a noarch
package is not arch-specific.
I'm glad it failed though, because I think the IPv6 updates/cron issue needs to
be sorted first (comment #24).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889
--- Comment #29 from Philip Prindeville phil...@redfish-solutions.com ---
(In reply to Paul Howarth from comment #28)
You can't have noarch sub-packages with %{_isa}-based dependencies, as a
noarch package is not arch-specific.
Wasn't point of comment #13 that the %{?_isa} was required?
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
geoipupdate-cron
I'm glad it failed though, because I think the IPv6 updates/cron issue needs
to be sorted first (comment #24).
Yeah, I'm still thinking about that issue. I didn't like having a separate
lastmod.pl script so I'm thinking of writing a Perl script that handles
everything.
I'll try to get it done this week.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889
--- Comment #30 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org ---
Requires:%{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}, crontabs(In reply to
Philip Prindeville from comment #29)
(In reply to Paul Howarth from comment #28)
You can't have noarch sub-packages with %{_isa}-based dependencies, as a
noarch package is not arch-specific.
Wasn't point of comment #13 that the %{?_isa} was required?
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
geoipupdate-cron
The cron package is noarch and must not have an arch-specific dependency.
The resulting package must be the same regardless of which arch it's built on,
which can't happen if there's an arch-specific dependency there. If guess that
comes under the if applicable part of the guideline.
I'm glad it failed though, because I think the IPv6 updates/cron issue needs
to be sorted first (comment #24).
Yeah, I'm still thinking about that issue. I didn't like having a separate
lastmod.pl script so I'm thinking of writing a Perl script that handles
everything.
I'll try to get it done this week.
Please do that before posting any updates for non-Rawhide releases. Let's get
this update right first time.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889
--- Comment #31 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl ---
(In reply to Philip Prindeville from comment #29)
(In reply to Paul Howarth from comment #28)
You can't have noarch sub-packages with %{_isa}-based dependencies, as a
noarch package is not arch-specific.
Wasn't point of comment #13 that the %{?_isa} was required?
I was wrong :) I forgot that this is a noarch package. You should remove
%{?_isa}, but the version dependency should stay.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889
--- Comment #32 from Philip Prindeville phil...@redfish-solutions.com ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #31)
(In reply to Philip Prindeville from comment #29)
Wasn't point of comment #13 that the %{?_isa} was required?
I was wrong :) I forgot that this is a noarch package. You should remove
%{?_isa}, but the version dependency should stay.
Fixed as -2.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889 --- Comment #25 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889 --- Comment #26 from Philip Prindeville phil...@redfish-solutions.com --- After an initial commit, I was building master and saw this. Is there a problem with the state of one of the build servers? $ fedpkg build Building geoipupdate-2.1.0-1.fc22 for rawhide Created task: 8789765 Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8789765 Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)... 8789765 build (rawhide, /geoipupdate:f030ce0e834eb6066450ffcadbf44cb5f0a6111e): open (arm02-builder02.arm.fedoraproject.org) 8789766 buildSRPMFromSCM (/geoipupdate:f030ce0e834eb6066450ffcadbf44cb5f0a6111e): open (buildvm-08.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 8789766 buildSRPMFromSCM (/geoipupdate:f030ce0e834eb6066450ffcadbf44cb5f0a6111e): open (buildvm-08.phx2.fedoraproject.org) - closed 0 free 1 open 1 done 0 failed 8789770 buildArch (geoipupdate-2.1.0-1.fc22.src.rpm, armv7hl): open (arm04-builder03.arm.fedoraproject.org) 8789772 buildArch (geoipupdate-2.1.0-1.fc22.src.rpm, i686): open (buildhw-11.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 8789771 buildArch (geoipupdate-2.1.0-1.fc22.src.rpm, x86_64): open (buildhw-09.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 8789771 buildArch (geoipupdate-2.1.0-1.fc22.src.rpm, x86_64): open (buildhw-09.phx2.fedoraproject.org) - closed 0 free 3 open 2 done 0 failed 8789772 buildArch (geoipupdate-2.1.0-1.fc22.src.rpm, i686): open (buildhw-11.phx2.fedoraproject.org) - closed 0 free 2 open 3 done 0 failed 8789770 buildArch (geoipupdate-2.1.0-1.fc22.src.rpm, armv7hl): open (arm04-builder03.arm.fedoraproject.org) - closed 0 free 1 open 4 done 0 failed 8789765 build (rawhide, /geoipupdate:f030ce0e834eb6066450ffcadbf44cb5f0a6111e): open (arm02-builder02.arm.fedoraproject.org) - FAILED: BuildError: mismatch when analyzing geoipupdate-cron-2.1.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm, rpmdiff output was: error: cannot open Packages database in /var/lib/rpm error: cannot open Packages database in /var/lib/rpm removed REQUIRES geoipupdate(armv7hl-32) = 2.1.0-1.fc22 added REQUIRES geoipupdate(x86-64) = 2.1.0-1.fc22 0 free 0 open 4 done 1 failed 8789765 build (rawhide, /geoipupdate:f030ce0e834eb6066450ffcadbf44cb5f0a6111e) failed $ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889 --- Comment #27 from Philip Prindeville phil...@redfish-solutions.com --- Seeing it for PPC on el6 builds as well: $ fedpkg build Building geoipupdate-2.1.0-1.el6 for el6-candidate Created task: 8789907 Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8789907 Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)... 8789907 build (el6-candidate, /geoipupdate:f030ce0e834eb6066450ffcadbf44cb5f0a6111e): open (arm04-builder17.arm.fedoraproject.org) 8789908 buildSRPMFromSCM (/geoipupdate:f030ce0e834eb6066450ffcadbf44cb5f0a6111e): open (buildhw-09.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 8789908 buildSRPMFromSCM (/geoipupdate:f030ce0e834eb6066450ffcadbf44cb5f0a6111e): open (buildhw-09.phx2.fedoraproject.org) - closed 0 free 1 open 1 done 0 failed 8789917 buildArch (geoipupdate-2.1.0-1.el6.src.rpm, i686): open (buildhw-05.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 8789916 buildArch (geoipupdate-2.1.0-1.el6.src.rpm, ppc64): free 8789915 buildArch (geoipupdate-2.1.0-1.el6.src.rpm, x86_64): open (buildhw-09.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 8789916 buildArch (geoipupdate-2.1.0-1.el6.src.rpm, ppc64): free - open (buildppc-01.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 8789917 buildArch (geoipupdate-2.1.0-1.el6.src.rpm, i686): open (buildhw-05.phx2.fedoraproject.org) - closed 0 free 3 open 2 done 0 failed 8789915 buildArch (geoipupdate-2.1.0-1.el6.src.rpm, x86_64): open (buildhw-09.phx2.fedoraproject.org) - closed 0 free 2 open 3 done 0 failed 8789916 buildArch (geoipupdate-2.1.0-1.el6.src.rpm, ppc64): open (buildppc-01.phx2.fedoraproject.org) - closed 0 free 1 open 4 done 0 failed 8789907 build (el6-candidate, /geoipupdate:f030ce0e834eb6066450ffcadbf44cb5f0a6111e): open (arm04-builder17.arm.fedoraproject.org) - FAILED: BuildError: mismatch when analyzing geoipupdate-cron-2.1.0-1.el6.noarch.rpm, rpmdiff output was: error: cannot open Packages database in /var/lib/rpm error: cannot open Packages database in /var/lib/rpm removed REQUIRES geoipupdate(x86-64) = 2.1.0-1.el6 added REQUIRES geoipupdate(ppc-64) = 2.1.0-1.el6 0 free 0 open 4 done 1 failed 8789907 build (el6-candidate, /geoipupdate:f030ce0e834eb6066450ffcadbf44cb5f0a6111e) failed $ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889 --- Comment #23 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- You can always release an update of GeoIP in F21 which Requires geoipupdate-cron, and together with it, geoipupdate-cron which Provides/Obsoletes GeoIP-update (like in F22). I think that this would be enough to ensure that existing setups are not broken. The new packages are rather small, so making them separately installable is not a big concern imho. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889 --- Comment #24 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org --- I think this package should include a geoipupdate-cron6 package, like the GeoIP-update6 package in current Fedora releases. Then we can have the cron/cron6 packages obsolete/provide the old update/update6 packages. Or am I missing something? The size of the packages isn't much the issue, it's that the cron jobs do substantial weekly downloads, so people might not want them all bundled together. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889
--- Comment #14 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org ---
(In reply to Philip Prindeville from comment #12)
(In reply to Paul Howarth from comment #11)
Yes, this should be:
Provides: GeoIP-update = 1.6.0
Obsoletes: GeoIP-update 1.6.0
You could arguably use %{version} in the Provides: line but I think it's
safer to stick with 1.6.0 as geoipupdate looks to have a different numbering
scheme to GeoIP.
Fixed.
We must make sure that anyone updating from GeoIP 1.5.x to 1.6.x gets the GeoIP
+ geoipupdate combination, as must anyone with GeoIP updating from F-21 to
F-22. People doing fresh installs on F-22 can install the two packages
independently. It can be tricky to get the provides/obsoletes/requires correct
for all of these cases, so they should be tested.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Review Request: geoipupdate |Review Request: geoipupdate
|- decouple update utility |- Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP
|from GeoIP as per upstream |Legacy binary databases
||from MaxMind
--- Comment #13 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl ---
- Add %config(noreplace) to the cron tab file.
- Add Requires: crontabs.
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[?]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
I cannot find the license statement anywhere.
[?]: 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 is included in %doc.
Please ask upstream to include a license file and add a link to the bug
report in the spec file.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), LGPL (v2.1 or later),
GPL (v2 or later), GPL (v3 or later), Unknown or generated. 5 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/var/tmp/1186889-geoipupdate/licensecheck.txt
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/cron.weekly
[!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
Package processes untrusted input from the network. Add
%global _hardened_build 1
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[-]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
EPEL5 compat.
[?]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[?]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
[Bug 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889
--- Comment #15 from Philip Prindeville phil...@redfish-solutions.com ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #13)
- Add %config(noreplace) to the cron tab file.
- Add Requires: crontabs.
Done.
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[?]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
I cannot find the license statement anywhere.
There's a LICENSE file on github that somehow didn't make it into the release
tarball.
[?]: 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 is included in %doc.
Please ask upstream to include a license file and add a link to the bug
report in the spec file.
Done.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), LGPL (v2.1 or
later),
GPL (v2 or later), GPL (v3 or later), Unknown or generated. 5
files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/var/tmp/1186889-geoipupdate/licensecheck.txt
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
Upstream limitation... no LICENSE file.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/cron.weekly
[!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
Package processes untrusted input from the network. Add
%global _hardened_build 1
Fixed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[-]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
EPEL5 compat.
[?]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
Not sure why this was marked thusly.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[?]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
Done:
https://github.com/maxmind/geoipupdate/issues/25
and
[Bug 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #16 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl ---
Please remove the extension from the man pages in %files:
%{_mandir}/man1/geoipupdate.1.*
etc. This makes a potential change of compression easier.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[-]: 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 is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), LGPL (v2.1 or later),
GPL (v2 or later), GPL (v3 or later), Unknown or generated. 5 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/var/tmp/1186889-geoipupdate/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[-]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
It seems to.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec
[Bug 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889 Philip Prindeville phil...@redfish-solutions.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889
--- Comment #17 from Philip Prindeville phil...@redfish-solutions.com ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #16)
Please remove the extension from the man pages in %files:
%{_mandir}/man1/geoipupdate.1.*
etc. This makes a potential change of compression easier.
Done
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[-]: 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 is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), LGPL (v2.1 or
later),
GPL (v2 or later), GPL (v3 or later), Unknown or generated. 5
files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/var/tmp/1186889-geoipupdate/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[-]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
It seems to.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[Bug 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889 --- Comment #18 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- What I meant to say, I now see that this wasn't very clear, was that this *version* with the specific Provides and Obsoletes works in F22. In F21 they might need adjustment. Basically what the maintainer of GeoIP says in #c14. Please coordinate with him. IIUC, GeoIP-1.5.1-6.fc21.x86_64 provides /usr/bin/geoipupdate, while GeoIP-1.6.4-0.fc22.x86_64 does not, so your package can be installed without conflicts in F22, but not in F21. BTW, I found a problem with the Provides and Obsoletes: Provides:GeoIP-update = 1.6.0 Obsoletes:GeoIP-update 1.6.0 They should be moved to the -cron subpackage. In F21, GeoIP-update provides the cron file, so it should be replaced with GeoIP-update-cron on upgrades. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889 --- Comment #20 from Philip Prindeville phil...@redfish-solutions.com --- Oh, and I pushed a new .spec, etc. to fedorapeople.org with the migrated Provides: and Obsoletes: as you suggested changing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889 --- Comment #19 from Philip Prindeville phil...@redfish-solutions.com --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #18) BTW, I found a problem with the Provides and Obsoletes: Provides: GeoIP-update = 1.6.0 Obsoletes: GeoIP-update 1.6.0 They should be moved to the -cron subpackage. In F21, GeoIP-update provides the cron file, so it should be replaced with GeoIP-update-cron on upgrades. Yeah, Paul and I kind of botched that up. It should have been GeoIP, GeoIP-update, GeoIP-update-cron, and GeoIP-update-cron6... and that way it could have been restructured as GeoIP, geoipupdate, geoipupdate-cron, and geoipupdate-cron6. But GeoIP-update ended up being overloaded, containing both the utility and the IPv4 cron script... We'll brainstorm and see what can be done to fix the issue for F20 and F21. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889 --- Comment #22 from Philip Prindeville phil...@redfish-solutions.com --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #21) Oh, I didn't notice that you're the co-maintainer. Sorry. No worries. You could play with Provides and Obsoletes and join updates of GeoIP and geoipupdate, but is it worth the trouble? Do you need to do the split for F21? Well, personally I run a few F20 machines that I've not yet had time to update (and I'm still cringing at the thought of 'fedup' not handling /var filesystems correctly). And I know of a lot of web services (Apache, SpamAssassin, ProFTPD, Mimedefang, etc) which all have GeoIP-based plugins and use geoipupdate to fetch databases weekly. I wouldn't want to leave them all in a lurch... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889 --- Comment #21 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- Oh, I didn't notice that you're the co-maintainer. Sorry. You could play with Provides and Obsoletes and join updates of GeoIP and geoipupdate, but is it worth the trouble? Do you need to do the split for F21? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
