[Bug 445687] Review Request: portreserve - TCP port reservation utility
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: portreserve - TCP port reservation utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445687 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE -- 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 445687] Review Request: portreserve - TCP port reservation utility
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: portreserve - TCP port reservation utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445687 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-30 10:11 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: portreserve Short Description: TCP port reservation utility Owners: twaugh Branches: F-9 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes -- 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 445687] Review Request: portreserve - TCP port reservation utility
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: portreserve - TCP port reservation utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445687 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-30 12:08 EST --- cvs done. -- 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 445687] Review Request: portreserve - TCP port reservation utility
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: portreserve - TCP port reservation utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445687 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-27 18:36 EST --- Yes, it builds fine for me on rawhide. I see the above three rpmlint complaints and don't think they're significant. Everything looks good to me. * source files match upstream: 16ca78b8aadb34d42a14fd2d6614e75cc7c130b81a4abfba08afd81a36913804 portreserve-0.0.1.tar.bz2 * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper (none). * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: portreserve = 0.0.1-2.fc10 = /bin/sh * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets OK (service setup). * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. APPROVED -- 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 445687] Review Request: portreserve - TCP port reservation utility
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: portreserve - TCP port reservation utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445687 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-19 04:33 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) - Build on mock (x86_64) failed: I just tried a mock build of portreserve-0.0.1-2.fc8 for fedora-9-x86_64 and it built fine. -- 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 445687] Review Request: portreserve - TCP port reservation utility
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: portreserve - TCP port reservation utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445687 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-09 03:41 EST --- Actually there are no checks, so I've removed 'make check' altogether. I think the build failure might be to do with a missing dependency on xmlto, although it does look odd. It builds fine on x86_64 here. The service is enabled by default due to its nature. On start-up it checks whether any services (e.g. cups) have registered with it, and if not it immediately exits. If they have, it simply reserves that port until the service is ready to start. Once all registered services have taken their ports it exits. In the initscript, subsys is not used -- portreserve uses a pidfile instead. I've made changes following your suggestions. Spec URL: http://twaugh.fedorapeople.org/portreserve/portreserve.spec SRPM URL: http://twaugh.fedorapeople.org/portreserve/portreserve-0.0.1-2.fc8.src.rpm -- 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 445687] Review Request: portreserve - TCP port reservation utility
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: portreserve - TCP port reservation utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445687
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-08 13:34 EST ---
Good:
+ Local build works fine
+ License look good
+ %doc section contains LICENSE file
+ Buildroot was cleaned on beginning of %install and %clean stanza
Bad:
- Rpmlint complaints on source RPM:
rpmlint portreserve-0.0.1-1.fc8.src.rpm
portreserve.src:23: W: make-check-outside-check-section make check
portreserve.src: W: strange-permission portreserve.spec 0600
- Rpmlint complaints on binary RPM:
$ rpmlint portreserve-0.0.1-1.fc8.x86_64.rpm
portreserve.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/init.d/portreserve
portreserve.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/init.d/portreserve
portreserve.x86_64: E: subsys-not-used /etc/init.d/portreserve
- Please don't use %makeinstall
- Inconsistence use of macros /var/run vs. %{_localstatedir}/run
- Please use %{_initrddir} for /etc/init.d
- Build on mock (x86_64) failed:
make all-am
make[1]: Entering directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/portreserve-0.0.1'
depbase=`echo src/portreserve.o | sed 's|[^/]*$|.deps/|;s|\.o$||'`;\
gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
-fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -MT
src/portreserve.o -MD -MP -MF $depbase.Tpo -c -o src/portreserve.o
src/portreserve.c \
mv -f $depbase.Tpo $depbase.Po
gcc -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector
--param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -o src/portreserve
src/portreserve.o
xmlto man -o doc doc/portreserve.xml
make[1]: execvp: xmlto: Permission denied
make[1]:
-
--
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 445687] Review Request: portreserve - TCP port reservation utility
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: portreserve - TCP port reservation utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445687 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-08 13:44 EST --- The 'make check' command should be place in the %check stanza -- 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
