[Bug 435121] Review Request: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435121 Jussi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 435121] Review Request: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435121 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|NOTABUG |DUPLICATE --- Comment #33 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-11-14 13:56:57 EDT --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 537587 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 435121] Review Request: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter
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: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435121 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-09 01:38 EST --- I can review this package, but I am not a sponsor. If you really need to be sponsored, please ad an blocker for: FE-NEEDSPONSOR as described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored Without this it is hard to see your sponsorship to sponsors and other people do not approve your package, because you need to be sponsored. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, 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 435121] Review Request: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter
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: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435121 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-09 01:44 EST --- Your package do not build in mock. Please fix BuildRequires: + autoreconf -fi /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.56718: line 27: autoreconf: command not found Also I think, it is not a good idea to get package from other distros. Writing an clean spec file is better. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, 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 435121] Review Request: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter
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: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435121 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-09 08:07 EST --- SPEC and SRPM URIs are the same, it should now build inside mock -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, 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 435121] Review Request: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter
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: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435121 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177841 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-09 08:07 EST --- Fixed BuildRequires, partly rewrote the init script and removed some unnecessary files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, 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 435121] Review Request: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter
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: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435121 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-09 08:31 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) > SPEC and SRPM URIs are the same, it should now build inside mock Still not: configure.ac:706: warning: AC_PROG_LIBTOOL is m4_require'd but not m4_defun'd m4/libtool_hack.m4:19: DS_LIBTOOL_RUN_IFELSE is expanded from... m4/sqlite_drv.m4:153: DS_SQLITE_LIBS is expanded from... m4/sqlite_drv.m4:306: DS_SQLITE is expanded from... configure.ac:706: the top level configure.ac:730: warning: AC_PROG_LIBTOOL is m4_require'd but not m4_defun'd m4/sqlite3_drv.m4:153: DS_SQLITE3_LIBS is expanded from... m4/sqlite3_drv.m4:306: DS_SQLITE3 is expanded from... configure.ac:730: the top level configure.ac:706: warning: AC_PROG_LIBTOOL is m4_require'd but not m4_defun'd m4/libtool_hack.m4:19: DS_LIBTOOL_RUN_IFELSE is expanded from... m4/sqlite_drv.m4:153: DS_SQLITE_LIBS is expanded from... m4/sqlite_drv.m4:306: DS_SQLITE is expanded from... configure.ac:706: the top level configure.ac:730: warning: AC_PROG_LIBTOOL is m4_require'd but not m4_defun'd m4/sqlite3_drv.m4:153: DS_SQLITE3_LIBS is expanded from... m4/sqlite3_drv.m4:306: DS_SQLITE3 is expanded from... configure.ac:730: the top level configure.ac:706: warning: AC_PROG_LIBTOOL is m4_require'd but not m4_defun'd m4/libtool_hack.m4:19: DS_LIBTOOL_RUN_IFELSE is expanded from... m4/sqlite_drv.m4:153: DS_SQLITE_LIBS is expanded from... m4/sqlite_drv.m4:306: DS_SQLITE is expanded from... configure.ac:706: the top level configure.ac:730: warning: AC_PROG_LIBTOOL is m4_require'd but not m4_defun'd m4/sqlite3_drv.m4:153: DS_SQLITE3_LIBS is expanded from... m4/sqlite3_drv.m4:306: DS_SQLITE3 is expanded from... configure.ac:730: the top level configure.ac:25: error: possibly undefined macro: AC_PROG_LIBTOOL If this token and others are legitimate, please use m4_pattern_allow. See the Autoconf documentation. autoreconf: /usr/bin/autoconf failed with exit status: 1 And also other errors from rpmlint: dspam.src:27: W: prereq-use /usr/sbin/useradd /usr/sbin/groupadd dspam.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot A server-side statistical anti-spam agent for Unix email servers. dspam.src: W: non-standard-group Productivity/Networking/Email/Servers dspam.src: W: invalid-license GPL If you really want to be sponsored, please read fedora packaging guidelines and may be also review guidelines. My information is just a partial review, because you package still not build in mock, which is not useable for fedora. I am interested to have dspam in fedora. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, 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 435121] Review Request: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter
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: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435121 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-09 09:19 EST --- I ran a rebuild inside mock and it managed to build the package correctly.. I am now trying to rebuild the package and looking if the uploaded specfile and source package are older than the one I have now. I am really sorry for that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, 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 435121] Review Request: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter
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: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435121 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-09 09:50 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) > I ran a rebuild inside mock and it managed to build the package correctly.. I > am > now trying to rebuild the package and looking if the uploaded specfile and > source package are older than the one I have now. By default mock cleans his buildroot (and build packages too) before a new rebuild. If you need my build logs, they are here: http://builder.salstar.sk/fedora-8-x86_64/result/ > I am really sorry for that. OK, no problem. :-) But again. There are many problems with this package. May be it is better to write a new one using "rpmdev-newspec dspam" command. It is cleaner and you can apply fedora packaging guidelines. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, 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 435121] Review Request: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter
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: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435121 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-09 10:02 EST --- I managed to get a clean build with mock (I uploaded the wrong revision of the SRPM). I ran rpmlint on the source rpm and it should now give no errors. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, 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 435121] Review Request: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter
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: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435121 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-09 11:58 EST --- (In reply to comment #8) > I managed to get a clean build with mock (I uploaded the wrong revision of the > SRPM). Much better. You can avoid these problem by increasing release version every time you make an update. > I ran rpmlint on the source rpm and it should now give no errors. May be source not. Try to run it on binary rpms too. At least some of them can be fixed. This path looks like a non standard path for fedora: /srv/www/webapps Please add EVR (epoch-version-release) to changelog entries, as described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-b7d622f4bb245300199c6a33128acce5fb453213 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, 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 435121] Review Request: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter
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: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam
filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435121
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-09 13:56 EST ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Much better. You can avoid these problem by increasing release version every
> time you make an update.
I prefer to begin increasing the release version when the package gets into the
repositories
> May be source not. Try to run it on binary rpms too. At least some of them can
> be fixed.
I'm going to fix problems with binary rpms tomorrow
>
> This path looks like a non standard path for fedora: /srv/www/webapps
Fixed (changed to /var/www/%{name})
>
> Please add EVR (epoch-version-release) to changelog entries, as described
> here:
>
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-b7d622f4bb245300199c6a33128acce5fb453213
>
Fixed this, too
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, 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 435121] Review Request: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter
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: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435121 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-09 21:34 EST --- >>You can avoid these problem by increasing release version every time you make an update. >I prefer to begin increasing the release version when the package gets into the repositories Only that by NOT increasing the release tag each time you submit a new version of your work for evaluation, you make reviewers life more difficult, as they will not know if the current revision has been or not modified (compared to the previous one). Since the absolute value of the release tag has really no meaning by itself, there is no reason at all to insist in having "-1" for the package uploaded to CVS. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, 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 435121] Review Request: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter
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: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435121 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-10 14:22 EST --- Spec URL: http://rpm.binaryhelix.org/specs/mail/antispam/dspam.spec SRPM URL: http://rpm.binaryhelix.org/dspam-3.8.0-19.src.rpm >From the changelog entries: - Added ldconfig postin/postun scriptlet to packages - renamed subpackage backend-sqlite3 to backend-sqlite - fixed CGI path from /srv/www/webapps to /var/www/dspam - removed %defined makeinstall -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, 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 435121] Review Request: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter
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: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435121 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-10 15:13 EST --- 403 - Forbidden for http://rpm.binaryhelix.org/dspam-3.8.0-19.src.rpm Please fix permissions. Other comments: - suggested buildroot value is here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-b4fdd45fa76cbf54c885ef0836361319ab962473 please use any higher example - URL from spec file "Not found!" - same problem for Source0 ! - prepare buildroot for %install: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-6c809b2e945ca78ae25d040f250be60f73181ef0 - /usr/share/doc/dspam/ is not a path for documentation I think it is not required to install documentation files, you can include them in files section also from BUILD directory. Proper path will be automatically added for packaged files. Leave documentation for subpackages in their own documentation directories or make a separate -doc subpackage where there is a lot of docs. - Libtool archives, foo.la files, should not be included. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-2302ec1e1f44202c9cc4bcce24cb711266557ad7 - please add your name and email in one of suggested format: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-b7d622f4bb245300199c6a33128acce5fb453213 Non blocker suggestion: - you can use "." at end of sentences in %description (but can't in Summary) May be an reviewer, which can sponsor you can find more problems. :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, 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 435121] Review Request: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter
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: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435121 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-11 08:54 EST --- Spec URL: http://rpm.binaryhelix.org/specs/mail/antispam/dspam.spec SRPM URL: http://rpm.binaryhelix.org/dspam-3.8.0-20.src.rpm * Tue Mar 11 2008 Lorenzo Villani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - 3.8.0-20 - Fixed buildroot path - Fixed homepage URL - Fixed Source0 URL - Added buildroot preparation in install scriptlet - Documentation is not explicitly installed anymore - Removed libtool archives (.la files) - Fixed earlier changelog entries to match one of the required formats - Fixed rpaths -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, 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 435121] Review Request: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter
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: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam
filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435121
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-11 09:30 EST ---
- MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for
directory ownership and usability).
- MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package.
See dspam backends, which contains for example libhash_drv.so. You can use
%exclude, if they are not required for package.
- MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
- you also shoud add "." at end of description tags :-)
I see no more problems for this package. After fixing these problems, I can
approve your package, but it will be better to wait for an sponsor, if you want
to be sponsored.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, 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 435121] Review Request: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter
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: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435121 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-11 09:35 EST --- I still see rpmlint problems. At least these can be fixed: - dspam-backend-hash.i386: W: one-line-command-in-%post /sbin/ldconfig try to change to something like: %post devel -p /sbin/ldconfig - dspam-devel.i386: W: symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/man/man3/dspam_detach.3.gz /usr/share/man/man3/libdspam.3.gz many of these messages. Please fix them. - dspam.i386: E: script-without-shebang /var/www/dspam/cgi-bin/admins - dspam.i386: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/dspam-3.8.0/qmail.txt - dspam.i386: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/dspam-3.8.0/pop3filter.txt - dspam.i386: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/dspam - dspam.i386: W: no-reload-entry /etc/init.d/dspam And other similar problems. Please re-run rpmlint after fixes to see, if there are still problems. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, 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 435121] Review Request: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter
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: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435121 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-11 13:08 EST --- - dspam.i386: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/dspam Shall I write a logrotate file even if upstream doesn't provide one? - dspam.i386: E: script-without-shebang /var/www/dspam/cgi-bin/admins Shall I add shebang even if upstream doesn't provide scripts with it? - dspam-devel.i386: W: symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/man/man3/dspam_detach.3.gz /usr/share/man/man3/libdspam.3.gz I think this stuff comes from upstream installation scripts/makefiles shall I fix them? (same applies to spurious-executable-perm errors, I suppose) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, 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 435121] Review Request: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter
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: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435121 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-11 15:03 EST --- (In reply to comment #17) > - dspam.i386: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/dspam > Shall I write a logrotate file even if upstream doesn't provide one? Sure, why not? You also can send it to upstream. For example you are using and init.d script, which is not included upstream too. This is same situation, just for another script. > - dspam.i386: E: script-without-shebang /var/www/dspam/cgi-bin/admins > Shall I add shebang even if upstream doesn't provide scripts with it? You have to consider, what happens after adding shebang. If it is ok, you can do this fix. In this example you have to fix permissions (remove execute permission) to fix this bug. It looks like it is an configuration file. May be proper place for configuration files is to place them somewhere in /etc and make a symlink (relative) from this place to /etc/... > - dspam-devel.i386: W: symlink-should-be-relative > /usr/share/man/man3/dspam_detach.3.gz /usr/share/man/man3/libdspam.3.gz > I think this stuff comes from upstream installation scripts/makefiles shall I > fix them? (same applies to spurious-executable-perm errors, I suppose) Yes. You can make a patch for upstream makefile or you can remove them in spec file a create new ones. Sometimes it is different for upstream releases to create relative symlinks for all OS and distributions, so you have to fix this in package release. And another problem: %dir /var/www is owned by httpd. You can't include conflicting files in package. Please, check this for other directories too. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, 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 435121] Review Request: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter
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: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435121 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-13 13:58 EST --- Spec URL: http://rpm.binaryhelix.org/specs/mail/antispam/dspam.spec SRPM URL: http://rpm.binaryhelix.org/dspam-3.8.0-21.src.rpm Yes, I'm still alive ;-) There are still problems with spurious executable permissions of some documentation files. I'm uploading this package to show the progress. * Thu Mar 13 2008 Lorenzo Villani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - 3.8.0-21 - removed /var/www directory ownership - fixed postin postun one-liners - added logrotate entry - as of guidelines, moved /var/www/dspam to /usr/share/dspam - fixed various spurious executable permissions -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, 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 435121] Review Request: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter
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: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435121 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-15 04:24 EST --- Have you tried to install your package? :-) ERROR: Failed dependencies: perl(configure.pl) is needed by dspam-3.8.0-21.i386 dspam-backend-sqlite3 = 3.8.0 is needed by dspam-devel-3.8.0-21.i386 Why all backends are required to install dspam-devel package? There is an typo for sqlite backend. You require sqlite3 backend but provides just sqlite (without number). Can you move dspam libraries into separate subpackage? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, 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 435121] Review Request: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter
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: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435121 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-16 05:11 EST --- The first dependency is auto-extracted by rpmbuild from CGI-BIN perl scripts, I don't know how to avoid this, the second missing dependency is a typo, when I removed the suffix from sqlite packages. You mean moving them to a -devel package? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, 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 435121] Review Request: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter
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: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam
filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435121
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-16 05:46 EST ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> The first dependency is auto-extracted by rpmbuild from CGI-BIN perl scripts,
> I don't know how to avoid this,
Without fixing this nobody can approve your package. :(
My own dspam package has an Provides: perl(configure.pl), but I think this is
not acceptable for Fedora.
You have to patch this script to make rpm happy (to do not require this).
> You mean moving them to a -devel package?
No, I think moving to %{name}-lib package.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, 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 435121] Review Request: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter
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: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435121 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-16 05:56 EST --- (In reply to comment #21) > The first dependency is auto-extracted by rpmbuild from CGI-BIN perl scripts, > I > don't know how to avoid this, See this: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Perl There is what you need. :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, 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 435121] Review Request: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter
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: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435121 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-19 13:07 EST --- Spec URL: http://rpm.binaryhelix.org/specs/mail/antispam/dspam.spec SRPM URL: http://rpm.binaryhelix.org/dspam-3.8.0-22.src.rpm * Wed Mar 19 2008 Lorenzo Villani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - 3.8.0-22 - Removed unwanted perl dependencies - Fixed a typo with backend-sqlite - Fixed spurious executable permissions on documentation files -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, 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 435121] Review Request: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter
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: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam
filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435121
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-17 15:07 EST ---
Created an attachment (id=302784)
--> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=302784&action=view)
rpmlint log of dspam 3.8.0-22
Note:
For general packaging guidelines you can refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
Also, you can use rpmlint (in rpmlint package) to detect
some general packaging errors.
First of all:
* backend modules
- dspam-backend-XXX rpms installs dspam modules (I guess so)
into %_libdir. This is not desired because
* The installed modules contain lots of undefined non-week
symbols (you can check this by
$ rpmlint dspam-backend-hash , for example) so these binaries
doesn't seem to be libraries.
Also the symlink named .so in %_libdir (not in
%_libdir/some_name/ ) should usually be in -devel package.
* The installed modules have too generic names (like libmysql_drv.so)
which will easily cause name space conflicts with other
database-related packages.
So
* Please create some package specific directory (like %_libdir/%name)
and move all modules into the directory.
Then:
* Macros
- Please use macros properly.
/usr/sbin -> %_sbindir, /usr/share -> %_datadir, for example
* disttag
- Please consider to use %?dist tag:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag
* Description
- Remove author credit from %description
* Inter-subpackages dependency
- Dependency between subpackages should usually be EVR
(Epoch-Version-Release)
specific (unless it is virtual Provides/Requires)
For example dspam-devel must have "dspam = %{version}-%{release}".
* Requires
- For dspam-devel package, please check the Requires you wrote are
really needed.
As far as I checked all of
Requires: mysql-devel zlib-devel glibc-devel openldap-devel
postgresql-devel sqlite-devel
Requires: %{name}-backend-mysql = %{version}
Requires: %{name}-backend-pgsql = %{version}
Requires: %{name}-backend-sqlite = %{version}
Requires: %{name}-backend-hash= %{version}
is not needed and should be removed.
- Packages containing pkgconfig .pc file must have "Requires: pkgconfig"
! Note for -devel subpackage
* config.h
- Installing autotool-generated header file named "config.h" is
really undesirable and this should be avoided because this will
easily cause name space conflict.
* If config.h (and config_shared.h) are not needed, please simply
remove these
* If needed, rename these files and fix other header files so
that #include macro don't cause any errors.
* configure option
- Some configure option seems disabled. Would you explain why?
For example:
439 checking whether to enable clamav...
440 no
* Initscripts
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SysVInitScript
- initscripts service file must be installed under %_initrddir
(expanded as /etc/rc.d/init.d) not under /etc/init.d.
- Installed services must not be enabled by default
(your installed dspam script has the line
23 # chkconfig: 345 80 80
which is not desired)
- service script should (not must) have "reload" entry
(for details, please refer to the wiki page above)
* Scriptlets
- needs fixing. Please refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SysVInitScript#InitscriptScriptlets
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/UsersAndGroups
! Please check in what order scriptlets are done: explained on
"Scriptlet Ordering" of
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets
* Documents directory
- You are using two documents directory:
/usr/share/doc/dspam and /usr/share/doc/dspam-3.8.0. Please unify
them unless impossible.
* File lists
- build log shows many files are listed twice:
---
- 1446 warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/dspam/cgi-bin/admins
1447 warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/dspam/cgi-bin/default.prefs
1448 warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/dspam/cgi-bin/rgb.txt
1449 warning: File listed twice:
/usr/share/dspam/cgi-bin/templates/nav_admin_error.html
1450 warning: File listed twice:
/usr/share/dspam/cgi-
[Bug 435121] Review Request: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter
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: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435121 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-19 06:47 EST --- i'm working on fixing the numerous packaging issues :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, 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 435121] Review Request: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter
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: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam
filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435121
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-21 16:35 EST ---
At the moment, most of the reported issues are fixed. There are still problems
moving modules to %{_libdir}/%{name} but I'm working on it. As soon as I have a
working package with above issues fixed I'll publish it.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, 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 435121] Review Request: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter
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: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435121 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-22 14:27 EST --- Spec URL: http://rpm.binaryhelix.org/specs/mail/antispam/dspam.spec SRPM URL: http://rpm.binaryhelix.org/dspam-3.8.0-24.fc9.src.rpm Notes: Most of the reported issues should be fixed now, there are still some rpmlint warnings and errors to be fixed. * Tue Apr 22 2008 Lorenzo Villani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - 3.8.0-24 - Fixed macro usage - Now using dist tag - Removed credit from description - Inter package dependencies are now in EVR format - Removed unneeded requires for dspam-devel - Removed unneeded config.h and config_shared.h - Fixed sysvinit script install path - Service is no longer enabled by default - Added a reload entry to sysvinit script (at the moment it's just a restart alias) - Fixed various scriptlets - Fixed module paths - Do not install CGI scripts anymore, upstream doesn't install it. (considering the option to make them available as a separate subpackage) - Unified documentation directories -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, 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 435121] Review Request: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter
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: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam
filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435121
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-23 14:53 EST ---
Well, I caught a cold so maybe I am missing something...
however for 3.8.0-24:
* undefined macro
- %_dspam_webapp seems undefined.
* %post/%postun for subpackages
---
%post backend-mysql -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun backend-mysql -p /sbin/ldconfig
---
- These types of scriptlets are now not needed as
modules are not installed under default ldconfig search
paths.
* Library installation directory
- On the other hand, installing lib%{name}*.so under
%_libdir/%name is not right as
---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# ldd -r /usr/sbin/dspam 2>&1 | grep -v /lib
undefined symbol: __syslog_lock (/usr/sbin/dspam)
undefined symbol: lc(/usr/sbin/dspam)
undefined symbol: _ds_prepare_path_for (/usr/sbin/dspam)
..
undefined symbol: dspam_getsource (/usr/sbin/dspam)
linux-gate.so.1 => (0x0011)
libdspam.so.7 => not found
---
I guess -24 is not working for you.
* Unifying documents directory
- Well, I think unifying documents directory is preferable,
however your current method is undesirable (actually this
mistake is not uncommon)
* First you create the directory
---
1336 + /usr/bin/install -Dd
/var/tmp/dspam-3.8.0-24.fc9-root/usr/share/doc/dspam-3.8.0/pgsql
---
At this stage the directory %buildroot%_defaultrootdir/%name-%version
exists.
* Then you move the directory:
---
1338 + /bin/mv /var/tmp/dspam-3.8.0-24.fc9-root/usr/share/doc/dspam
/var/tmp/dspam-3.8.0-24.fc9-root/usr/share/doc/dspam-3.8.0
---
This creates %buildroot%_defaultrootdir/%name-%version/%name and
moves files under there, which I guess is not what you want.
* And the problem also occurs at %doc. What %doc actually does is that:
---
1379 Processing files: dspam-3.8.0-24.fc9
1380 Executing(%doc): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.45745
1381 + umask 022
1382 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD
1383 + cd dspam-3.8.0
1384 + DOCDIR=/var/tmp/dspam-3.8.0-24.fc9-root/usr/share/doc/dspam-3.8.0
1385 + export DOCDIR
1386 + rm -rf /var/tmp/dspam-3.8.0-24.fc9-root/usr/share/doc/dspam-3.8.0
1387 + /bin/mkdir -p
/var/tmp/dspam-3.8.0-24.fc9-root/usr/share/doc/dspam-3.8.0
1388 + cp -pr CHANGELOG
/var/tmp/dspam-3.8.0-24.fc9-root/usr/share/doc/dspam-3.8.0
---
This explains what %doc does, i.e.
- First %doc _removes_ %buildroot%_defaultdocdir/%name-%version.
So all files installed under this directory are gone.
- Then %doc creates %buildroot%_defaultdocdir.
* rpmlint issue
---
dspam.src: E: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
dspam.i386: E: shell-syntax-error-in-%preun
dspam-devel.i386: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/usr/share/man/man3/dspam_addattribute.3.gz /usr/share/man/man3/libdspam.3.gz
dspam-devel.i386: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/usr/share/man/man3/dspam_attach.3.gz /usr/share/man/man3/libdspam.3.gz
dspam-devel.i386: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/usr/share/man/man3/dspam_create.3.gz /usr/share/man/man3/libdspam.3.gz
dspam-devel.i386: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/usr/share/man/man3/dspam_destroy.3.gz /usr/share/man/man3/libdspam.3.gz
dspam-devel.i386: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/usr/share/man/man3/dspam_detach.3.gz /usr/share/man/man3/libdspam.3.gz
dspam-devel.i386: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/usr/share/man/man3/dspam_getsource.3.gz /usr/share/man/man3/libdspam.3.gz
dspam-devel.i386: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/usr/share/man/man3/dspam_init.3.gz /usr/share/man/man3/libdspam.3.gz
dspam-devel.i386: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/usr/share/man/man3/dspam_process.3.gz /usr/share/man/man3/libdspam.3.gz
---
Summary:
- Please add %clean section
- There is a syntax error in %preun of dspam
---
%preun
if [ "$1" = 0 ]; then
/sbin/service %{name} stop >/dev/null 2>&
[Bug 435121] Review Request: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter
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: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435121 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||ix.net) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-12 11:44 EST --- ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, 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 435121] Review Request: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter
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: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435121 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]| |ix.net) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-13 07:29 EST --- I can't work on this package anymore, upstream places files all over the places and I can't afford packaging it. Feel free to reassign or close this request. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, 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 435121] Review Request: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter
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: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435121 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG Flag|fedora-review? | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-13 11:36 EST --- Okay, once closing. If you have enough time to package this again, feel free to open a new review request again, thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, 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
