[Bug 1026337] Review Request: nfs-ganesha — a user-mode file server for NFS (v3, 4.0, 4.1 pNFS)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026337 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026337] Review Request: nfs-ganesha — a user-mode file server for NFS (v3, 4.0, 4.1 pNFS)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026337 --- Comment #39 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026337] Review Request: nfs-ganesha — a user-mode file server for NFS (v3, 4.0, 4.1 pNFS)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026337 Kaleb KEITHLEY changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #38 from Kaleb KEITHLEY --- Package Change Request === Package Name: nfs-ganesha Short Description: Ganesha NFS Server Owners: kkeithle New Branches: epel7 create epel7 branch -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026337] Review Request: nfs-ganesha — a user-mode file server for NFS (v3, 4.0, 4.1 pNFS)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026337 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026337] Review Request: nfs-ganesha — a user-mode file server for NFS (v3, 4.0, 4.1 pNFS)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026337 --- Comment #37 from Jon Ciesla --- Please resubmit with epel7 as the branch, there's a character in the BZ our script can't handle, and while I'm working on that I don't want to delay your work. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026337] Review Request: nfs-ganesha — a user-mode file server for NFS (v3, 4.0, 4.1 pNFS)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026337 Kaleb KEITHLEY changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #36 from Kaleb KEITHLEY --- Package Change Request === Package Name: nfs-ganesha Short Description: Ganesha NFS Server Owners: kkeithle New Branches: el7 create el7 branch -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026337] Review Request: nfs-ganesha — a user-mode file server for NFS (v3, 4.0, 4.1 pNFS)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026337 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026337] Review Request: nfs-ganesha — a user-mode file server for NFS (v3, 4.0, 4.1 pNFS)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026337 --- Comment #35 from Jon Ciesla --- Complete. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026337] Review Request: nfs-ganesha — a user-mode file server for NFS (v3, 4.0, 4.1 pNFS)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026337 Kaleb KEITHLEY changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #34 from Kaleb KEITHLEY --- Package Change Request === Package Name: nfs-ganesha Short Description: Ganesha NFS Server Owners: kkeithle New Branches: el6 Unretire el6 branch -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026337] Review Request: nfs-ganesha — a user-mode file server for NFS (v3, 4.0, 4.1 pNFS)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026337 --- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System --- nfs-ganesha-2.0.0-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026337] Review Request: nfs-ganesha — a user-mode file server for NFS (v3, 4.0, 4.1 pNFS)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026337 --- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System --- nfs-ganesha-2.0.0-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026337] Review Request: nfs-ganesha — a user-mode file server for NFS (v3, 4.0, 4.1 pNFS)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026337 --- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System --- nfs-ganesha-2.0.0-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nfs-ganesha-2.0.0-1.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026337] Review Request: nfs-ganesha — a user-mode file server for NFS (v3, 4.0, 4.1 pNFS)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026337 --- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System --- nfs-ganesha-2.0.0-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nfs-ganesha-2.0.0-1.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026337] Review Request: nfs-ganesha — a user-mode file server for NFS (v3, 4.0, 4.1 pNFS)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026337 Kaleb KEITHLEY changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2013-11-26 10:18:03 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026337] Review Request: nfs-ganesha — a user-mode file server for NFS (v3, 4.0, 4.1 pNFS)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026337 --- Comment #29 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026337] Review Request: nfs-ganesha — a user-mode file server for NFS (v3, 4.0, 4.1 pNFS)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026337 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026337] Review Request: nfs-ganesha — a user-mode file server for NFS (v3, 4.0, 4.1 pNFS)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026337 Kaleb KEITHLEY changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #28 from Kaleb KEITHLEY --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nfs-ganesha Short Description: Ganesha NFS Server Owners: kkeithle Branches: f19 f20 el6 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026337] Review Request: nfs-ganesha — a user-mode file server for NFS (v3, 4.0, 4.1 pNFS)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026337 --- Comment #27 from Kaleb KEITHLEY --- WRT gluster_gfapi, we're waiting for upstream glusterfs to update gfapi before enabling it in nfs-ganesha. Ceph is not a priority (for me anyway) at this time. After I hand off the package to the Ganesha devs they may choose to enable it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026337] Review Request: nfs-ganesha — a user-mode file server for NFS (v3, 4.0, 4.1 pNFS)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026337 --- Comment #26 from Kaleb KEITHLEY --- address issues in comment 25 (pro forma) new files at Spec URL: http://kkeithle.fedorapeople.org/update-12/nfs-ganesha.spec SRPM URL: http://kkeithle.fedorapeople.org/update-12/nfs-ganesha-2.0.0-0.1.rc5.fc19.src.rpm Thank you. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026337] Review Request: nfs-ganesha — a user-mode file server for NFS (v3, 4.0, 4.1 pNFS)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026337 --- Comment #24 from Kaleb KEITHLEY --- bundling exception approved, add virtual Provides new files at Spec URL: http://kkeithle.fedorapeople.org/update-11/nfs-ganesha.spec SRPM URL: http://kkeithle.fedorapeople.org/update-11/nfs-ganesha-2.0.0-0.1.rc5.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026337] Review Request: nfs-ganesha — a user-mode file server for NFS (v3, 4.0, 4.1 pNFS)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026337 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026337] Review Request: nfs-ganesha — a user-mode file server for NFS (v3, 4.0, 4.1 pNFS)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026337
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #25 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
Issues:
===
- Please seem my note about %{_smp_mflags} in comment #15. Parallel build is
still broken, so you should remove %{_smp_mflags} and add a note why.
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/doc/nfs-ganesha
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles
Not very important... %dir %{_defaultdocdir}/%{name} can be removed from %files
because it is already added by %doc.
OTOH, nfs-ganesha-docs should have '%dir %{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}'
added to its %files.
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"GPL", "CDDL", "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL
(v2) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated", "BSD (4
clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "CDDL (v1.0 only)", "ISC", "LGPL (v3 or
later)", "*No copyright* LGPL (v3 or later)", "LGPL", "*No copyright*
BSD", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with
incorrect FSF address)". 211 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of licensecheck in /home/zbyszek/fedora/nfs-ganesha/review-nfs-
ganesha/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/nfs-ganesha
(see note above)
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
(but see note above)
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[?]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Perl:
[ ]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:.
Note: Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_
[Bug 1026337] Review Request: nfs-ganesha — a user-mode file server for NFS (v3, 4.0, 4.1 pNFS)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026337 --- Comment #23 from Kaleb KEITHLEY --- update to RC5 new files at Spec URL: http://kkeithle.fedorapeople.org/update-10/nfs-ganesha.spec SRPM URL: http://kkeithle.fedorapeople.org/update-10/nfs-ganesha-2.0.0-0.rc5.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026337] Review Request: nfs-ganesha — a user-mode file server for NFS (v3, 4.0, 4.1 pNFS)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026337 --- Comment #22 from Kaleb KEITHLEY --- update to RC4 and "release" version of ntirpc from github (instead of from kkeithle.fedorapeople.org) new files at Spec URL: http://kkeithle.fedorapeople.org/update-9/nfs-ganesha.spec SRPM URL: http://kkeithle.fedorapeople.org/update-9/nfs-ganesha-2.0.0-0.rc4.fc19.src.rpm (And yes, we're still waiting for https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/363) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026337] Review Request: nfs-ganesha — a user-mode file server for NFS (v3, 4.0, 4.1 pNFS)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026337 --- Comment #21 from Kaleb KEITHLEY --- https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/363 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026337] Review Request: nfs-ganesha — a user-mode file server for NFS (v3, 4.0, 4.1 pNFS)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026337 --- Comment #20 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- Package looks very nice now, apart from the bundling issue. Fedora does have libtirpc, which complicates things. I don't see a way around applying for an exception. This case falls squarely into https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Modified_beyond_a_certain_extent. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026337] Review Request: nfs-ganesha — a user-mode file server for NFS (v3, 4.0, 4.1 pNFS)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026337 --- Comment #19 from Kaleb KEITHLEY --- > and please extend the description a bit, new files at Spec URL: http://kkeithle.fedorapeople.org/update-8/nfs-ganesha.spec SRPM URL: http://kkeithle.fedorapeople.org/update-8/nfs-ganesha-2.0.0-0.rc3.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026337] Review Request: nfs-ganesha — a user-mode file server for NFS (v3, 4.0, 4.1 pNFS)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026337
--- Comment #18 from Kaleb KEITHLEY ---
>> > Build issue aside, I find it hard to justify how including this library
>> > doesn't violate https://fedoraproject.org
>> > /wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries. You said that "it'll be split out
>> > when > ready", but actually is seems to be
>> > a totally separate project. I'd approve the package as is, otherwise.
>>
>> Well, then we need an exception I guess. A) It's not really bundled, or I
>> don't understand your definition of bundled. It's a static lib used during
>> the build, not installed or even in the RPM,
>It is bundled, in the sense that this project A contains a snapshot of project
>B as part of it's sources.
>So if B makes a new release independently from A, than our compiled A will be
>stuck with the old version.
libntirpc != libtirpc. I'll change it to libnfsganesharpc.a Does that make it
better?
>> B) Upstream isn't ready to
>> package it separately because they haven't settled on the final APIs and at
>> the present time they are the only consumer of it. Its git repo is, at
>> present, still a part of the nfs-ganesha project on github.
>OK, this is the crucial information I was missing. This information was
>>obscured by the Source1 link
>not being a link to upstream. In this case bundling them could be OK, if it
>was really one project in two tarballs. But I don't think that's really the
>case.
>Even if nfs-ganesha is the new upstream for libntirpc, libntirpc has been
>packaged
>for redhat and other distributions.
That's not true. As I alluded to above, you're probably thinking of libtirpc.
> So we have a situation where it was a separate
> project, is packaged separately, and is intended to be separate in the
> future, so it's
> very hard to argue that it is part of the nfs server.
At present that actually is the case.
> If can apply for an exception, but I think it's unlikely to pass. And I'm
> *quite* sure
> that making a second package will be faster than waiting for Fesco.
Upstream are quite clear that they do not want separate packaging at this time.
> > And C) if the
>> license was incompatible I could definitely understand it, but since it's
>> BSD then I don't see the license as an issue.
>> > nfs-ganesha.src:62: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %prep %cmake
>> > -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Maintainer -DBUILD_CONFIG=everything
>> > -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=%{buildroot}/usr ./src
>> > Yeah, %cmake step should be moved to %build.
>> >
>> > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
>> > Note: Directories without known owners:
>> > /usr/share/doc/nfs-ganesha-2.0.0
>> > Directory ownership is missing.
>>
>> Not sure what the fix is for this. I made a WAG.
> Hm, I'm not sure what a WAG is, but it should be enough to just add
> '%dir /usr/share/doc/nfs-ganesha-2.0.0/' to '%files docs'.
>
> I see that I missed one more thing:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/UnversionedDocdirs.
> Basically, if you use %{_pkgdocdir} as the documentation directory, things >
> should work in F >= 19.
> I'm not sure though how this macro will work out with the single docs
> directory, you might have to adjust
> to keep -docs docs in the same directory as main package docs.
new files at
Spec URL: http://kkeithle.fedorapeople.org/update-7/nfs-ganesha.spec
SRPM URL:
http://kkeithle.fedorapeople.org/update-7/nfs-ganesha-2.0.0-0.rc3.fc19.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026337] Review Request: nfs-ganesha — a user-mode file server for NFS (v3, 4.0, 4.1 pNFS)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026337
--- Comment #17 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
(In reply to Kaleb KEITHLEY from comment #16)
> > Build issue aside, I find it hard to justify how including this library
> > doesn't violate https://fedoraproject.org
> > /wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries. You said that "it'll be split out
> > when > ready", but actually is seems to be
> > a totally separate project. I'd approve the package as is, otherwise.
>
> Well, then we need an exception I guess. A) It's not really bundled, or I
> don't understand your definition of bundled. It's a static lib used during
> the build, not installed or even in the RPM,
It is bundled, in the sense that this project A contains a snapshot of project
B as part of it's sources.
So if B makes a new release independently from A, than our compiled A will be
stuck with the old version.
> B) Upstream isn't ready to
> package it separately because they haven't settled on the final APIs and at
> the present time they are the only consumer of it. Its git repo is, at
> present, still a part of the nfs-ganesha project on github.
OK, this is the crucial information I was missing. This information was
obscured by the Source1 link
not being a link to upstream. In this case bundling them could be OK, if it
was really one project in two tarballs. But I don't think that's really the
case.
Even if nfs-ganesha is the new upstream for libntirpc, libntirpc has been
packaged
for redhat and other distributions. So we have a situation where it was a
seperate
project, is packaged separately, and is intended to be separate in the future,
so it's
very hard to argue that it is part of the nfs server.
If can apply for an exception, but I think it's unlikely to pass. And I'm
*quite* sure
that making a second package will be faster than waiting for Fesco.
> And C) if the
> license was incompatible I could definitely understand it, but since it's
> BSD then I don't see the license as an issue.
> > nfs-ganesha.src:62: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %prep %cmake
> > -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Maintainer -DBUILD_CONFIG=everything
> > -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=%{buildroot}/usr ./src
> > Yeah, %cmake step should be moved to %build.
> >
> > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/nfs-ganesha-2.0.0
> > Directory ownership is missing.
>
> Not sure what the fix is for this. I made a WAG.
Hm, I'm not sure what a WAG is, but it should be enough to just add
'%dir /usr/share/doc/nfs-ganesha-2.0.0/' to '%files docs'.
I see that I missed one more thing:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/UnversionedDocdirs.
Basically, if you use %{_pkgdocdir} as the documentation directory, things
should work in F >= 19.
I'm not sure though how this macro will work out with the single docs
directory, you might have to adjust
to keep -docs docs in the same directory as main package docs.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026337] Review Request: nfs-ganesha — a user-mode file server for NFS (v3, 4.0, 4.1 pNFS)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026337
--- Comment #16 from Kaleb KEITHLEY ---
> Build issue aside, I find it hard to justify how including this library
> doesn't violate https://fedoraproject.org
> /wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries. You said that "it'll be split out when
> > ready", but actually is seems to be
> a totally separate project. I'd approve the package as is, otherwise.
Well, then we need an exception I guess. A) It's not really bundled, or I don't
understand your definition of bundled. It's a static lib used during the build,
not installed or even in the RPM, B) Upstream isn't ready to package it
separately because they haven't settled on the final APIs and at the present
time they are the only consumer of it. Its git repo is, at present, still a
part of the nfs-ganesha project on github. And C) if the license was
incompatible I could definitely understand it, but since it's BSD then I don't
see the license as an issue.
> nfs-ganesha.src:62: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %prep %cmake
> -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Maintainer -DBUILD_CONFIG=everything
> -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=%{buildroot}/usr ./src
> Yeah, %cmake step should be moved to %build.
>
> [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/nfs-ganesha-2.0.0
> Directory ownership is missing.
Not sure what the fix is for this. I made a WAG.
> Rpmlint (installed packages)
>
> # rpmlint nfs-ganesha nfs-ganesha-docs
> nfs-ganesha.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency krb5-libs
>
> Automatic requires should suffice. I get:
>
> libgssapi_krb5.so.2()(64bit)
> libgssapi_krb5.so.2(gssapi_krb5_2_MIT)(64bit)
> libk5crypto.so.3()(64bit)
> libkrb5.so.3()(64bit)
> libkrb5.so.3(krb5_3_MIT)(64bit)
>
> Isn't this enough?
>
> Requires
>
> nfs-ganesha (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
>...
>xfsprogs
>
> Why are xfsprogs required?
new files at
Spec URL: http://kkeithle.fedorapeople.org/update-6/nfs-ganesha.spec
SRPM URL:
http://kkeithle.fedorapeople.org/update-6/nfs-ganesha-2.0.0-0.rc3.fc19.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026337] Review Request: nfs-ganesha — a user-mode file server for NFS (v3, 4.0, 4.1 pNFS)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026337
--- Comment #15 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
Ooops, parallel build is borked:
[ 65%] [ 65%] make[2]: *** No rule to make target `libntirpc/src/libntirpc.a',
needed by `FSAL/FSAL_PROXY/libfsalproxy.so.4.2.0'. Stop.
It seems to be a race condition, because it sometimes worked. I removed
%{_smp_flags} to get it to compile.
Build issue aside, I find it hard to justify how including this library doesn't
violate https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries. You said
that "it'll be split out when ready", but actually is seems to be
a totally separate project. I'd approve the package as is, otherwise.
nfs-ganesha.src:62: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %prep %cmake
-DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Maintainer -DBUILD_CONFIG=everything
-DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=%{buildroot}/usr ./src
Yeah, %cmake step should be moved to %build.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/nfs-ganesha-2.0.0
Directory ownership is missing.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
# rpmlint nfs-ganesha nfs-ganesha-docs
nfs-ganesha.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency krb5-libs
Automatic requires should suffice. I get:
libgssapi_krb5.so.2()(64bit)
libgssapi_krb5.so.2(gssapi_krb5_2_MIT)(64bit)
libk5crypto.so.3()(64bit)
libkrb5.so.3()(64bit)
libkrb5.so.3(krb5_3_MIT)(64bit)
Isn't this enough?
Requires
nfs-ganesha (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
...
xfsprogs
Why are xfsprogs required?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026337] Review Request: nfs-ganesha — a user-mode file server for NFS (v3, 4.0, 4.1 pNFS)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026337 --- Comment #14 from Kaleb KEITHLEY --- >> >> 2. It would be better to put the docs in /usr/share/doc/nfs-ganesha (not >> -docs). > > ??? In the RPMs I have built the docs are in /usr/share/doc/nfs-ganesha-2.0.0/ never mind, I was confused. new files at Spec URL: http://kkeithle.fedorapeople.org/update-5/nfs-ganesha.spec SRPM URL: http://kkeithle.fedorapeople.org/update-5/nfs-ganesha-2.0.0-0.rc3.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026337] Review Request: nfs-ganesha — a user-mode file server for NFS (v3, 4.0, 4.1 pNFS)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026337 --- Comment #13 from Kaleb KEITHLEY --- >> >> 2. It would be better to put the docs in /usr/share/doc/nfs-ganesha (not >> -docs). > > ??? In the RPMs I have built the docs are in /usr/share/doc/nfs-ganesha-2.0.0/ never mind. new files at Spec URL: http://kkeithle.fedorapeople.org/update-5/nfs-ganesha.spec SRPM URL: http://kkeithle.fedorapeople.org/update-5/nfs-ganesha-2.0.0-0.rc3.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026337] Review Request: nfs-ganesha — a user-mode file server for NFS (v3, 4.0, 4.1 pNFS)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026337 --- Comment #12 from Kaleb KEITHLEY --- > 1. License is something like "BSD (3 clause) and LGPLv3+", because of > libntirpc yes, nfs-ganesha is LGPLv3+, and libntirpc is BSD (as is libtirpc, which it is derived from) > > 2. It would be better to put the docs in /usr/share/doc/nfs-ganesha (not > -docs). ??? In the RPMs I have built the docs are in /usr/share/doc/nfs-ganesha-2.0.0/ > > 3. docs package should also have a copy of the LGPLv3+ license. > > 4. Suggestion: change the she-bang line in /usr/bin/genestat.pl to > /usr/bin/perl. This will help automatic requires at least. > > 5. Requires: krb5 seems to be unsatisfiable. Is it actually necessary to have > anything kerberos-related installed locally? > > 6. systemd service file is missing. > > Something like the attached unit file is a good start. > Please have a look at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd. > BuildRequires: systemd-units new files at Spec URL: http://kkeithle.fedorapeople.org/update-4/nfs-ganesha.spec SRPM URL: http://kkeithle.fedorapeople.org/update-4/nfs-ganesha-2.0.0-0.rc3.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026337] Review Request: nfs-ganesha — a user-mode file server for NFS (v3, 4.0, 4.1 pNFS)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026337 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@fabian-affolter.ch Summary|Review Requiest:|Review Request: nfs-ganesha |nfs-ganesha — a user-mode |— a user-mode file server |file server for NFS (v3,|for NFS (v3, 4.0,4.1 pNFS) |4.0,4.1 pNFS) | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
