[Bug 195363] Review Request: esc and esc-xulrunner-devel
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: esc and esc-xulrunner-devel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195363 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 17:42 EST --- We have xulrunner? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195363] Review Request: esc and esc-xulrunner-devel
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: esc and esc-xulrunner-devel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195363 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 19:58 EST --- ESC is a xulrunner application. If we have a xulrunner an official xulrunner rpm for Fedora that would be preferable to esc-xulrunner-devel. Bill do you know if there's a schedule for xulrunner? Thanks, bob -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195363] Review Request: esc and esc-xulrunner-devel
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: esc and esc-xulrunner-devel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195363 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED], ||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 20:49 EST --- Sometime between now and the final release. :) Cc'ing caillon, jrb. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195363] Review Request: esc and esc-xulrunner-devel
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: esc and esc-xulrunner-devel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195363 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 19:42 EST --- Updated the following: Location of the packages Spec URL: http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/built/rpm_review/jmagne/esc.spec http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/built/rpm_review/jmagne/esc-xulrunner-devel.spec SRPM URL: http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/built/rpm_review/jmagne/esc-1.0.0-1.src.rpm http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/built/rpm_review/jmagne/esc-xulrunner-devel-1.8.0.1-1.src.rpm Updated: esc.spec esc-1.0.0-1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195363] Review Request: esc and esc-xulrunner-devel
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: esc and esc-xulrunner-devel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195363 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-30 15:15 EST --- I'd like to see this use the in distro xulrunner, still trying to get a timeline on when that will be included in Core. First glance at the specs look good though. Setting to needinfo in xulrunner. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195363] Review Request: esc and esc-xulrunner-devel
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: esc and esc-xulrunner-devel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195363 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo? | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-05 12:04 EST --- Last word was there won't be a system xulrunner for fc6/rhel5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195363] Review Request: esc and esc-xulrunner-devel
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: esc and esc-xulrunner-devel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195363 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-10 14:09 EST --- A couple of comments. We upstream ESC, yes? Can we make the tarball .tar.bz2 or .tar.gz instead of .tgz ? It's more consistent that way. Also, why don't we ship the shell script and desktop file in the upstream tarball? I've noticed in the %install section you are manually copying over files. Does the makefile have a working install target? The usual procedure is make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195363] Review Request: esc and esc-xulrunner-devel
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: esc and esc-xulrunner-devel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195363 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 14:26 EST --- I need to schedule a meeting with some people to figure out what the update strategy for gecko is going to be moving on into the future before I can accurately comment as to what I think we should do here. But now with the latest revisions of the schedule, xulrunner 1.0 is slated to not be officially released until after FC6 is out, which will cause problems one way or another... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195363] Review Request: esc and esc-xulrunner-devel
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: esc and esc-xulrunner-devel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195363 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 21:42 EST --- Thanks for the comments on the spec file. I have updated the esc source RPM with suggested changes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195363] Review Request: esc and esc-xulrunner-devel
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: esc and esc-xulrunner-devel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195363
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO
Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED])
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-14 10:23 EST ---
So the esc-xulrunner-devel package is sort of weird.
First, we don't normally put -devel in the name of srpms. -devel is usually
reserved for subpackages.
Also, you install all header files, images, config files, stylesheets, binaries,
etc into %{_libdir}. Normally we put header files in %{_includedir}, images in
%{_datadir}, binaries in %{_bindir}, etc.
On the other hand, esc-xulrunner-devel is only needed for building esc, yea? not
for running esc? Why are we installing it as a separate package at all then?
Can we just put the xulrunner tarball as an extra Source: line in the spec file
and get rid of esc-xulrunner-devel entirely?
Also, I tried to build the two packages and ran into problems. esc looks for
something called nsinstall in wrong place. I had to create a symlink for the
build to finish.
After I got it built, it didn't work with our cert server. It gave me an error
code 44 or something. This actually brings up another point.
This tool only works with a closed source certificate server that most in the
fedora community don't have access to. Maybe it would be better if we put this
in extras instead of core? What do you think?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195363] Review Request: esc and esc-xulrunner-devel
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: esc and esc-xulrunner-devel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195363 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED])| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-14 13:12 EST --- Thanks for the comments: Yes, esc-xulrunner-devel is only needed for esc to build against. Also ESC privately deploys the xulrunner directory which is output by the xulrunner build. It would be no big deal to simply build xulrunner as part of the ESC build. As for the nsinstall problem I have not seen that here. Have you any log snippets of that build failure? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195363] Review Request: esc and esc-xulrunner-devel
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: esc and esc-xulrunner-devel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195363 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-14 13:26 EST --- Created an attachment (id=132450) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=132450&action=view) build log of failure It looks like it's assuming the esc-xulrunner-devel build dir is still around. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195363] Review Request: esc and esc-xulrunner-devel
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: esc and esc-xulrunner-devel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195363 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO_REPORTER OtherBugsDependingO|188265 |188267 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195363] Review Request: esc and esc-xulrunner-devel
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: esc and esc-xulrunner-devel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195363 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |ASSIGNED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 21:27 EST --- Thanks to the suggestions I have updated "esc.spec" and "esc-1.0.0-1.src.rpm. Now xulrunner gets built as part of the ess build process and the build glitches reported should be taken care of. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195363] Review Request: esc and esc-xulrunner-devel
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: esc and esc-xulrunner-devel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195363 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-24 19:09 EST --- Ray, ping, can you continue this review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195363] Review Request: esc and esc-xulrunner-devel
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: esc and esc-xulrunner-devel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195363
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 01:34 EST ---
So I built this today. I've noticed a few things.
Some packaging issues:
- in general, packages almost always follow %{macro_name} format instead of
%macro_name
- you need to call gtk-update-icon-cache in %post for your icon to be visible in
the menus, etc.
- the vendor thing is a bit odd. Why do you rename the icon to have the vendor
prefix? I think I would probably just drop the vendor stuff altogether and pass
--vendor esc to desktop-file-install.
- why do you install the LICENSE into libdir?
- in general, if we put things in the menu in the default install we give them a
generic name (e.g, "Text Editor" instead of "gEdit"). Maybe "Smart Card
Manager" ?
- you've got it in the wrong spot I think. It probably makes more sense to be
in "Administration".
- It needs a root password, yes? So you'll need to use consolehelper. install
esc in /usr/sbin, create a symlink from /usr/bin/consolehelper to /usr/bin/esc
and install a file called esc to /etc/pam.d with this in it:
#%PAM-1.0
authinclude config-util
account include config-util
session include config-util
- If you want to start the monitoring bits at login, you'll need to install a
desktop file (like the one you put in /usr/share/applications) into
/etc/xdg/autostart . Note, the program will be run as a normal user, not as
root, so you'll need to separate the management bits from the monitoring bits
for it to work.
- If you do start it at login, make sure you hide the icon until someone inserts
a security token.
cosmetic issues:
1) the icon in the notification area is different than the icon in the app.
2) the gradient is a bit ugly
3) the spacing in the side frame is weird
4) some of the text is wonky, could probably use some proof reading
Some other things:
- When it starts up it asks for a config uri. I gave the cseng one and it
didn't work. It just gave me error code 28. At some point I switched to
connecting to the mountain view vpn (from the westford one) and then it started
working. I don't know if changing vpn's is what fixed it or if it only works
sometimes.
- If I click the test button on the config dialog it gives me another dialog
telling me it's about to do the test I just asked for. that dialog isn't really
a good idea.
- It probably would be a good idea to disallow the token that was used for
logging in from being able to be formatted.
- why is the log file for esc in libdir?
Note, I never actually got enrollment to work. It formatted my token fine, but
after a few blinks during the enrolment step the token led just turns off and
the client sits with two spinning throbbers indefinitely. It's just sitting in
poll waiting for events I think.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195363] Review Request: esc and esc-xulrunner-devel
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: esc and esc-xulrunner-devel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195363 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 01:43 EST --- So I closed esc in the middle of the operation and it looks like it succeeded fine. Maybe the dialog just needs to change state when it's done. The plugged-in keys list doesn't know my name or the issuer, but i'm guessing that's a cert server configuration issue. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195363] Review Request: esc and esc-xulrunner-devel
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: esc and esc-xulrunner-devel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195363
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 18:40 EST ---
Thanks again for the great suggestions. I have completed as many as I could in
the short time.
My comments mixed with yours.
Some packaging issues:
- in general, packages almost always follow %{macro_name} format instead of
%macro_name
- you need to call gtk-update-icon-cache in %post for your icon to be visible in
the menus, etc.
- the vendor thing is a bit odd. Why do you rename the icon to have the vendor
prefix? I think I would probably just drop the vendor stuff altogether and pass
--vendor esc to desktop-file-install.
All addressed.
- why do you install the LICENSE into libdir?
Not changed.
- in general, if we put things in the menu in the default install we give them a
generic name (e.g, "Text Editor" instead of "gEdit"). Maybe "Smart Card
Manager" ?
Done.
- you've got it in the wrong spot I think. It probably makes more sense to be
in "Administration".
Done.
- It needs a root password, yes? So you'll need to use consolehelper. install
esc in /usr/sbin, create a symlink from /usr/bin/consolehelper to /usr/bin/esc
and install a file called esc to /etc/pam.d with this in it:
The app runs just fine as a regular user.
- If you want to start the monitoring bits at login, you'll need to install a
desktop file (like the one you put in /usr/share/applications) into
/etc/xdg/autostart . Note, the program will be run as a normal user, not as
root, so you'll need to separate the management bits from the monitoring bits
for it to work.
Done.
- If you do start it at login, make sure you hide the icon until someone inserts
a security token.
This one I will have to figure out.
cosmetic issues:
1) the icon in the notification area is different than the icon in the app.
2) the gradient is a bit ugly
3) the spacing in the side frame is weird
4) some of the text is wonky, could probably use some proof reading
Work on the UI in general is ongoing including the above.
Some other things:
- When it starts up it asks for a config uri. I gave the cseng one and it
didn't work. It just gave me error code 28. At some point I switched to
connecting to the mountain view vpn (from the westford one) and then it started
working. I don't know if changing vpn's is what fixed it or if it only works
sometimes.
The current latest esc app is designed to be able to call back to the server to
get many quantities such as the TPS URL. Your server does not have this
functionality as of yet.
As a backup it still supports the "esc.tps.url" pref value in
/usr/lib/esc-1.0.0/defaults/preferences/esc-prefs.js. This can be set manually.
- If I click the test button on the config dialog it gives me another dialog
telling me it's about to do the test I just asked for. that dialog isn't really
a good idea.
Done.
- It probably would be a good idea to disallow the token that was used for
logging in from being able to be formatted.
Good idea.
- why is the log file for esc in libdir?
Now the file goes under the user's profile. Which on Linux is under:
~/.redhat/esc
Note, I never actually got enrollment to work. It formatted my token fine, but
after a few blinks during the enrolment step the token led just turns off and
the client sits with two spinning throbbers indefinitely. It's just sitting in
poll waiting for events I think.
This was a simple Javascript glitch which has been addressed.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195363] Review Request: esc and esc-xulrunner-devel
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: esc and esc-xulrunner-devel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195363
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 22:51 EST ---
It looks like the spec and package moved to
http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/built/rpm_review/jmagne/
yea? Looking good. A few things:
- The gtk-update-icon-cache stuff still isn't right. Have a look at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ScriptletSnippets for the right idiom.
- you don't have to manually run tar for xulrunner, you can specify another
%setup line, although I don't remember the right arguments to give it off hand.
- Also, I don't think you should need %{_buildir} anywhere. rpm normally puts
you in the right directories i think.
- I think if you just put %doc esc/LICENSE in the filelist then it should get
moved to the right place (/usr/share/doc/esc-1.0.0/LICENSE) automatically, but I
could be wrong.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
