[Bug 187430] Review Request: elektra
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: elektra https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187430 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|NOTABUG |DUPLICATE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-07 21:14 EST --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 209906 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187430] Review Request: elektra
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: elektra https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187430 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |201449 nThis|| Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 12:50 EST --- And another week with no response. Closing. If upstream indeed has fixed the issues and there is another maintainer willing to resubmit this package, they should open a new tiket and mark this one as a duplicate of the new one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187430] Review Request: elektra
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: elektra https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187430 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 10:49 EST --- This has been in NEEDINFO for nearly two months now. I will close this bug in one week if there is no further response. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187430] Review Request: elektra
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: elektra https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187430 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 12:32 EST --- Most of the issues raised during the review have been fixed upstream in the new release (I believe so) except for the potential name clashes. So I think it shouldn't be closed for now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187430] Review Request: elektra
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: elektra https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187430 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 13:14 EST --- The lack of response by the package submitter is the problem. Nothing upstream does makes any difference as long as the person who submitted the package doesn't respond to comments here. The last message from the submitter was in early June. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187430] Review Request: elektra
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: elektra https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187430 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-03 07:15 EST --- (In reply to comment #33) There is still an issue, with kdb dlopening libelektratools. Indeed, libelektratools.so is in elektra-devel, so kdb cannot dlopen libelektratool. For example at install time [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# rpm -Uvh /home/dumas/RPM-fc/RPMS/i386/elektra-0.6.2-1.i386.rpm Préparation... ### [100%] 1:elektra### [100%] kdbLibLoad : libelektratools.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directorykdb: XML importing and editing disabled kdbLibLoad : libelektratools.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directorykdb: XML importing and editing disabled How and where to ask for a sponsor ? First of all make that bug block FE-NEEDSPONSOR Ask on the fedora-extras-list for a sponsor pointing out your comments on other people package reviews, participate in the discussions on the fedora extras mailing lists, subscribe to the cvs commit extras mailing list, watch the changes for the packages you are interested in and comment on them when you have something to say, submit bug reports when you have found limitations in other people packages. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187430] Review Request: elektra
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: elektra
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187430
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 08:31 EST ---
Version 0.6.2 is available at:
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=117521package_id=127957
(In reply to comment #31)
ln -sf ../../%{_lib}/libelektra.so.?
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir}/libelektra.so
Doesn't work. Globs don't work inside specs.
Wha do you mean by They are sort of fake? I had a look at the code, and
indeed in keyset.c usleep is used although there is no
#include unistd.h
(maybe conditionalized on HAVE_UNISTD_H, with AC_CHECK_HEADERS(unistd.h))
This is happening already. This bug is being fixed by our build system
specialists.
As a side note, in case you weren't aware, in the usleep man page,
there is:
This function is obsolete. Use nanosleep(2) or setitimer(2) instead.
Will be changed post-0.6.2, just released.
who accepts the dlopened libs in /lib
Patrice Dumas accepted patch moved dlopened backends to /lib/elektra/
(In reply to comment #32)
As it ships a .pc file, the elektra-devel package should
Requires: pkgconfig
Dependency added.
How and where to ask for a sponsor ?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187430] Review Request: elektra
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: elektra https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187430 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #127781|0 |1 is obsolete|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187430] Review Request: elektra
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: elektra https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187430 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-31 14:29 EST --- As it ships a .pc file, the elektra-devel package should Requires: pkgconfig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187430] Review Request: elektra
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: elektra
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187430
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-30 06:18 EST ---
I did this on spec:
rm $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_lib}/libelektra.so
ln -sf ../../%{_lib}/libelektra.so.2 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir}/libelektra.so
Any suggestion for a cleaner way without hardcoding the lib version ?
ln -sf ../../%{_lib}/libelektra.so.? $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir}/libelektra.so
Most warnings are due to some bug in the build system claiming warning:
implicit declaration of function 'usleep'. They are sort of fake, and will
be
fixed.
Wha do you mean by They are sort of fake? I had a look at the code, and
indeed in keyset.c usleep is used although there is no
#include unistd.h
(maybe conditionalized on HAVE_UNISTD_H, with AC_CHECK_HEADERS(unistd.h))
As a side note, in case you weren't aware, in the usleep man page,
there is:
This function is obsolete. Use nanosleep(2) or setitimer(2) instead.
Anyway I don't have any other comments. I believe the package is in shape
now, so now you should look for a sponsor who accepts the dlopened libs
in /lib and the header files directly in /usr/include... Or be prepared to
fix those issues.
To look for a sponsor, the best is to show that you have enough knowledge
of the packaging guidelines to have CVS access granted to you, and
the best for that is to participate in other packages reviews, by
comenting and sending patches for specfiles.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187430] Review Request: elektra
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: elektra
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187430
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-29 18:37 EST ---
rpmlint output:
E: elektra configure-without-libdir-spec
I don't understand this one.
W: elektra devel-file-in-non-devel-package /lib/libelektra-default.so
Safe to ignore - as long as having dlopened libs in /lib is accepted,
as it is a link to a dlopened lib.
E: elektra script-without-shellbang
/usr/share/doc/elektra-0.6.1/scripts/convert-hwconfKudzu
The shellbang should be
#!/usr/bin/perl
and if you want to avoid the dependency on perl, you should
chmod -x
E: elektra-devel no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib/libelektratools.so
E: elektra-devel no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib/libelektra.so
This should be acted upon (those should be symlinks and not
files).
E: elektra invalid-soname /lib/libelektra-filesys.so libelektra-filesys.so
E: elektra invalid-soname /lib/libelektra-fstab.so libelektra-fstab.so
E: elektra-backend-berkeleydb invalid-soname /lib/libelektra-berkeleydb.so
libelektra-berkeleydb.so
That's strange. They seems to me to be acceptable sonames for dlopened
libs. Maybe it is an error that happens when dlopened libs are put in
standard library directories. As said in a comment above, putting
those dlopened libs in /lib/elektra/ should be much better.
W: elektra-backend-berkeleydb no-documentation
Safe to ignore.
other comments:
* --prefix=%{_prefix} and --exec-prefix=/ were unneeded in my tests
This is correct. If removed, software won't be installed in /bin and /lib
I guess you wanted to say incorrect. But it is not incorrect, the
software is installed in /bin and /lib thanks to
--bindir=/bin \
--libdir=/%{_lib} \
Have a look at the resulting variables in config.log.
The key.3.gz conflict was also removed.
There is still /bin/kdb, kdb.{1,3}, kdb.h which are somehow generic
but could be acceptable.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187430] Review Request: elektra
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: elektra https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187430 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-29 18:42 EST --- There aren't many different compile warnings, it would be nice to have them fixed (upstream if possible). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187430] Review Request: elektra
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: elektra
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187430
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-30 00:00 EST ---
Check update on
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/elektra/elektra-0.6.1-32.src.rpm
The rpmlint output is almost empty now.
E: elektra script-without-shellbang
/usr/share/doc/elektra-0.6.1/scripts/convert-hwconfKudzu
The shellbang should be
#!/usr/bin/perl
and if you want to avoid the dependency on perl, you should
chmod -x
Fixed. Thanks.
E: elektra-devel no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib/libelektratools.so
E: elektra-devel no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib/libelektra.so
This should be acted upon (those should be symlinks and not
files).
Fixed.
I did this on spec:
rm $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_lib}/libelektra.so
ln -sf ../../%{_lib}/libelektra.so.2 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir}/libelektra.so
Any suggestion for a cleaner way without hardcoding the lib version ?
other comments:
* --prefix=%{_prefix} and --exec-prefix=/ were unneeded in my tests
This is correct. If removed, software won't be installed in /bin and /lib
I guess you wanted to say incorrect. But it is not incorrect, the
software is installed in /bin and /lib thanks to
--bindir=/bin \
--libdir=/%{_lib} \
Fixed. Thanks.
Most warnings are due to some bug in the build system claiming warning:
implicit declaration of function 'usleep'. They are sort of fake, and will be
fixed.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187430] Review Request: elektra
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: elektra
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187430
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-27 08:37 EST ---
Please try the new src.rpm from
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/elektra/elektra-0.6.1-31.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #25)
blockers:
* changelog
* source not found
* .so for libelekra should be in a devel package
All three points fixed.
rpmlint output:
W: elektra incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.6.1-3 0.6.1-30
E: elektra invalid-soname /lib/libelektra-filesys.so libelektra-filesys.so
E: elektra invalid-soname /lib/libelektra-fstab.so libelektra-fstab.so
W: elektra wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/elektra-0.6.1/standards/signature.xml
W: elektra devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libelektratools.so
W: elektra devel-file-in-non-devel-package /lib/libelektra.so
W: elektra devel-file-in-non-devel-package /lib/libelektra-default.so
E: elektra script-without-shellbang
/usr/share/doc/elektra-0.6.1/scripts/convert-hwconfKudzu
All coherent messages fixed.
other comments:
* --prefix=%{_prefix} and --exec-prefix=/ were unneeded in my tests
This is correct. If removed, software won't be installed in /bin and /lib
* The redundant %doc line is not needed in devel subpackage:
%doc AUTHORS COPYING ChangeLog README INSTALL
Removed.
The key.3.gz conflict was also removed.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187430] Review Request: elektra
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: elektra https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187430 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-26 05:45 EST --- manpage conflict with allegro-devel LANG=C rpm -i /home/che/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/elektra-devel-0.6.1-30.x86_64.rpm file /usr/share/man/man3/key.3.gz from install of elektra-devel-0.6.1-30 conflicts with file from package allegro-devel-4.2.0-12.fc5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187430] Review Request: elektra
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: elektra
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187430
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-17 14:28 EST ---
blockers:
* changelog
* source not found
* .so for libelekra should be in a devel package
rpmlint output:
W: elektra incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.6.1-3 0.6.1-30
E: elektra invalid-soname /lib/libelektra-filesys.so libelektra-filesys.so
E: elektra invalid-soname /lib/libelektra-fstab.so libelektra-fstab.so
W: elektra wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/elektra-0.6.1/standards/signature.xml
W: elektra devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libelektratools.so
W: elektra devel-file-in-non-devel-package /lib/libelektra.so
W: elektra devel-file-in-non-devel-package /lib/libelektra-default.so
E: elektra script-without-shellbang
/usr/share/doc/elektra-0.6.1/scripts/convert-hwconfKudzu
other comments:
* --prefix=%{_prefix} and --exec-prefix=/ were unneeded in my tests
* The redundant %doc line is not needed in devel subpackage:
%doc AUTHORS COPYING ChangeLog README INSTALL
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187430] Review Request: elektra
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: elektra https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187430 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 10:17 EST --- (In reply to comment #22) Nobody contributed a CSH script yet for profile.d and we don't know how to write one. Then I strongly suggest to learn about it: yum install tcsh Doesn't this documentation packaging proccess makes the build system too much dependent on RPM ? Not at all. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187430] Review Request: elektra
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: elektra https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187430 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 14:11 EST --- The new version is temporarily here: http://avi.alkalay.net/software/elektra/elektra-0.6.1-30.src.rpm All warnings were cleaned. /bin/kdb and /lib/libelektra* were not moved to /usr because the nature of this software is to be usable also by early boot stage programs. All %doc-related suggestions were implemented. Many other cleanups and suggestions were implemented. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
