[Bug 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378

Shawn Starr  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Last Closed||2015-09-22 14:47:39



--- Comment #49 from Shawn Starr  ---
Currently Icinga 2.x is being packaged a BZ will be forthcoming once I get the
SELinux discussion thats now ongoing sorted out.

-- 
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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378



--- Comment #48 from reader_1...@hotmail.com ---
Thanks for both explanation and your work on packaging Icinga.

-- 
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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378



--- Comment #46 from reader_1...@hotmail.com ---
Hi,

Is this package abandoned? It would be great if you continue on packaging since
Icinga is a good monitoring software?

Thanks, regards

-- 
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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378



--- Comment #47 from Shawn Starr shawn.st...@rogers.com ---
Far from it, icinga 1.x is being abandoned 2.x is being worked on, if a ticket
isn't existing I will be creating it. I'm working with upstream.

-- 
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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378

reader_1...@hotmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||reader_1...@hotmail.com



--- Comment #45 from reader_1...@hotmail.com ---
Hi,

What is the current status of this package? We are waiting this package for a
long time in order to migrate.

-- 
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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378



--- Comment #41 from Shawn Starr shawn.st...@rogers.com ---
alternatives might be a good idea, we do use it for configuration not just
DSOs, executables.

-- 
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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378

Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||volke...@gmx.at



--- Comment #42 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at ---
For reference: zabbix uses Alternatives for the different DB backend
implementations.

-- 
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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378



--- Comment #43 from Shawn Starr shawn.st...@rogers.com ---
Upstream has concerns that we'd need to then depend on MySQL and PostgreSQL
installations.

-- 
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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378



--- Comment #44 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at ---
I don't understand.

-- 
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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378



--- Comment #39 from Michael Friedrich michael.friedr...@gmail.com ---
Mh. The two packages exist mainly for the reason pulling different
dependencies.

MySQL requires the libdbi mysql driver.
PostgreSQL requires the libdbi pgsql driver.

I can't see another possibility to make these dependencies happen without 2
separate packages, that's why I've implemented them in the original upstream
package years ago.

-- 
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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378



--- Comment #40 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org ---
But for now, there is no difference in term of dependencies between the 2 rpms,
hence my questions ( unless I didn't see it ).

For the %attr(777), I am not sure we really need to specify them. A symlink is
always 777.

And for the 2 rpms and alternative configuration, I wonder if we shouldn't use
alternatives.

-- 
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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378



--- Comment #35 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org ---
The spec file was not updated ?

-- 
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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378



--- Comment #36 from Shawn Starr shawn.st...@rogers.com ---
Sure is? its 1.11.5-2 now, check %changelog info

-- 
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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378



--- Comment #37 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org ---
Weird, 2 time a proxy issue, it work after a refresh :/

Anyway:
theses permissions look strange :
%ghost %attr(777,-,-) %{_sysconfdir}/%{name}/ido2db.cfg
%attr(660,root,root) %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/%{name}/ido2db.cfg.pgsql

Any reason to have a file as 777, and the other as 660 ?
( ie, 640 should enough )

There is still the same file duplicated between idoutils-*, no ?
And looking in more detail, I am wondering if the split really bring something
useful, except a different default configuration file.

-- 
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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378



--- Comment #38 from Shawn Starr shawn.st...@rogers.com ---
Wrt to %ghost this comes from:

https://dev.icinga.org/issues/4517

If the permissions for the symlink don't need to be 777 then 640 would be fine
both.

But this goes away if we just bundle w/o the symlink and provide additional
documentation on setting up ido2db.

For the latter, I would agree, the DSOs and binaries are identical. I think the
typical Fedora/RHEL approach is documentation for the user to switch the
symlink themselves?

We can provide both configs but it's up to the user to set ido2db to use the
respective backend. 

Thoughts?

-- 
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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378



--- Comment #32 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org ---
Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
===
- Permissions on files are not set properly.
  there is no reason to use 775 for /usr/share/ stuff and around.

- icinga-doc should be noarch

- /etc/icinga and /var/spool/icinga are unowned

- %defattr is not needed

- spec should use %global instead if %define

- too much duplication of file between idoutils-libdbi-pgsql and
idoutils-libdbi-mysql

- requires are not strict enough

- jquery is bundled, so we need bundled(jquery)  per policy
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Packages_granted_temporary_exceptions

- LICENSE is not present when just the -doc rpm is installed

- idoutils-libdbi-mysql conflict with idoutils-libdbi-pgsql

- The idoutils-libdbi-pgsql do not requires anything more than
idoutils-libdbi-mysql so 
why is this splitted ?

= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[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 (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), GPL (v2) (with
 incorrect FSF address), GPL (v2), Unknown or generated. 41 files
 have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/1055378-icinga/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /var/spool/icinga
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /var/spool/icinga,
 /usr/lib/systemd/system, /etc/logrotate.d, /etc/icinga, /usr/lib/systemd
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
 Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm  4.4
 Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: 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.
[!]: 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.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 337920 bytes in 14 files.
[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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is 

[Bug 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378



--- Comment #33 from Shawn Starr shawn.st...@rogers.com ---
Thanks Michael for running the fedora-review, I will look at these issues and
update. There's a whole lot.

-- 
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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378



--- Comment #34 from Shawn Starr shawn.st...@rogers.com ---
Here is the next updated packages

SPEC: http://spstarr.fedorapeople.org/packages/icinga/icinga.spec
SRPM:
http://spstarr.fedorapeople.org/packages/icinga/icinga-1.11.5-2.fc21.src.rpm

Please review, fedora-review only shows permission issues now while everything
else looks fine.

-- 
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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378



--- Comment #31 from Shawn Starr shawn.st...@rogers.com ---
Comments...

- Source1: icinga.tmpfiles.conf

* This is fixed, thanks

- Why is there gui and gui-config, if there is only 1 single gui-config
package, couldn't they be merged to simplify packaging ?

* Michael addressed this ans Icinga 2.x is released now.

-
%if 0%{?el7}%{?fc20}%{?fc21}%{?fc22}
this is not very elegant, shouldn't it just be check against EL6 and disable
systemd requires ( and if you go this way, please also take care of the
requires on systemd-units ).

* I've ripped this all out, this is for Fedora 20/21/EPEL7

- BuildRequires gcc is not needed

* Removed

- There is a few unowned directory

*** More eyes would help, if you see some let me know I will add %dir tags
for them please 

- License file is not installed in all case ( like if I install just the doc or
just guide-config )

* Added

- Could upstream be notified for the config.guess / config.sub issue ( so we
can drop the explicit requires on libtool ) ?

* Upstream has done this

- %defattr(-,root,root,-)  is not needed, please remove as the spec is already
long enough :)

* I've removed this specific entry but need the others however.


SPEC:  http://spstarr.fedorapeople.org/packages/icinga/icinga.spec
SRPM:
http://spstarr.fedorapeople.org/packages/icinga/icinga-1.11.5-1.fc21.src.rpm

Please provide further feedback, the last thing I'd like is the SELinux pieces
in place.

-- 
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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378



--- Comment #30 from Michael Friedrich michael.friedr...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Shawn Starr from comment #29)
 as for: - Could upstream be notified for the config.guess / config.sub
 issue ( so we can drop the explicit requires on libtool ) ?
 
 I'll discuss with Michael

https://git.icinga.org/?p=icinga-core.git;a=commit;h=4e736b911029dfa7ff4651e56d078b469aa37216

1.11.5 is out soon.

-- 
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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378



--- Comment #29 from Shawn Starr shawn.st...@rogers.com ---
Sam will be helping us with the SElinux policy files. 

Here's my plan forward, for EPEL5/6 packages we'll keep them out of this scope.

For Fedora 20/21, EPEL7+ these will all be targeted.

I'll have another 1.x build today with Michael Scherer's suggestions

as for: - Could upstream be notified for the config.guess / config.sub issue (
so we can drop the explicit requires on libtool ) ?

I'll discuss with Michael

-- 
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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378

Joshua Hoblitt jhobl...@cpan.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC|jhobl...@cpan.org   |

Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||m...@zarb.org
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@zarb.org
  Flags||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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378



--- Comment #25 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org ---
I do not understand the split of idoutils-libdbi-pgsql and
idoutils-libdbi-mysql. They provides the same files, but do not conflict with
each others.

-- 
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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378



--- Comment #26 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org ---
Also :

- Source1: icinga.tmpfiles.conf
this is not used anywhere

- Why is there gui and gui-config, if there is only 1 single gui-config
package, couldn't they be merged to simplify packaging ?

-
%if 0%{?el7}%{?fc20}%{?fc21}%{?fc22}
this is not very elegant, shouldn't it just be check against EL6 and disable
systemd requires ( and if you go this way, please also take care of the
requires on systemd-units ).

- BuildRequires gcc is not needed

- There is a few unowned directory

- License file is not installed in all case ( like if I install just the doc or
just guide-config )

- Could upstream be notified for the config.guess / config.sub issue ( so we
can drop the explicit requires on libtool ) ?

- %defattr(-,root,root,-)  is not needed, please remove as the spec is already
long enough :)

-- 
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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378



--- Comment #27 from Michael Friedrich michael.friedr...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Michael Scherer from comment #26)
 - Why is there gui and gui-config, if there is only 1 single gui-config
 package, couldn't they be merged to simplify packaging ?

Icinga 2 ships its own configuration required for Icinga Classic UI (standalone
installation) [0]. Therefore it was reasonable to split the configuration, and
let 2 packages provide it - icinga-gui-config and icinga2-classicui-config. The
latter is provided by Icinga 2 (upstream only, there's a pending review request
for fedora too).

Icinga 2.0.0 Beta 1 will be released tomorrow [1] btw.

If Fedora decides to solve that in a different manner, it's totally fine.
Community members are just using Classic UI or Web 1.x with Icinga 1.x and 2.x,
but long-term the in-development Icinga Web 2 shall be used with Icinga 2. 

 - Could upstream be notified for the config.guess / config.sub issue ( so we
 can drop the explicit requires on libtool ) ?

Which issue exactly (didn't find it in the history)? And yes, notifying
upstream is very easy. Either create a new issue at https://dev.icinga.org or
tell Shawn or Sam to do so ;-)

[0] https://github.com/Icinga/icinga2/blob/next/icinga2.spec#L207
[1] https://dev.icinga.org/projects/i2/roadmap

-- 
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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378



--- Comment #28 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org ---
Something around this topic :
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-March/180685.html

The spec remove the config.guess and update it from the local copy. I guess it
would have been solved already by a new tarball, and so is either not needed,
or something to be fixed upstream.

-- 
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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378



--- Comment #22 from Shawn Starr shawn.st...@rogers.com ---
the .spec is not EPEL6 friendly, due to no systemd support. I wanted to focus
on Fedora first then backport to EPEL6/7.

-- 
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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378



--- Comment #23 from Shawn Starr shawn.st...@rogers.com ---
Here is v1.11.3 builds

SPEC: http://spstarr.fedorapeople.org/packages/icinga/icinga.spec
SRPM:
http://spstarr.fedorapeople.org/packages/icinga/icinga-1.11.3-1.fc21.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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378



--- Comment #24 from Shawn Starr shawn.st...@rogers.com ---
@Bill the testsuite was removed by upstream, so this should no longer be needed
anymore.

-- 
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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378



--- Comment #21 from Bill McGonigle bill-bugzilla.redhat@bfccomputing.com 
---
trying a build on el6, I'm seeing two problems so far.  First is 'solved' -
Requires for perl-Test-WWW-Mechanize-CGIApp which appears to be missing from
EPEL at this point.

I rebuilt:
  perl-Test-WWW-Mechanize-CGIApp-0.05-7.fc15.src.rpm
(last version without hard perl version requires) on el6.  Output here:
  http://www.bfccomputing.com/downloads/fedora/icinga/

That can go in a separate bug if it's truly needed for icinga (fairly large
stack - if it's just for one test maybe we skip it?).

Second, I'm hitting:

  Processing files: icinga-1.11.1-1.el6.x86_64
  error: File must begin with /: %{_unitdir}/icinga.service

Do we need to ifdef systemd?  I'm presuming somebody still has a sysvinit
service file hanging around.  There's one in the rpmforge package.

-- 
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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378



--- Comment #20 from Michael Friedrich michael.friedr...@gmail.com ---
Have fun with 1.11.3.

https://lists.icinga.org/pipermail/icinga-announce/2014-May/11.html

-- 
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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378



--- Comment #18 from Shawn Starr shawn.st...@rogers.com ---
There is a license issue someone has raised on IRC


[10:08] formorer https://dev.icinga.org/issues/6023
[10:09] formorer I just discovered that during a license audit I did for
debian
[10:10] formorer for debian I will probably remove the whole json tests from
the source, until it is fixed.

v1.11.3 will be coming that will fix this, v1.11.2 was released this week
without this.

But we still can do a review overall.

-- 
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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378



--- Comment #19 from Michael Friedrich michael.friedr...@gmail.com ---
Right. I required 1.11.2 soon-ish for fixing an incompatibility with Icinga 2
and missed all the rest, sorry about that.

Still, I am not sure how the json (and t-tap) license issue can be fixed (need
to discuss that with Ricardo).

-- 
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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378



--- Comment #16 from Shawn Starr shawn.st...@rogers.com ---
1.11.1 is being packaged now instead, since you've taken most of our patches,
I'm just cleaning that up and will post for review the spec/SRPM

-- 
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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378



--- Comment #17 from Shawn Starr shawn.st...@rogers.com ---
Here is v1.11.1 builds, mock passes, the usual errors are noted uid/gid, funny
permissions etc..

SPEC: http://spstarr.fedorapeople.org/packages/icinga/icinga.spec
SRPM:
http://spstarr.fedorapeople.org/packages/icinga/icinga-1.11.1-1.fc21.src.rpm

We still do not have SELinux policy generated for this (?) yet. But let's get
the core review done, we can drop the SELinux stuff in once we have things
sorted.

-- 
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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378



--- Comment #15 from Shawn Starr shawn.st...@rogers.com ---
I am packaging v1.10.4 these will be ready for review tonight.

-- 
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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378



--- Comment #14 from Michael Friedrich michael.friedr...@gmail.com ---
Either take 1.10.4 or 1.11.1
https://www.icinga.org/2014/03/28/icinga-1-11-1-1-10-4-1-9-6-bugfix-releases/

-- 
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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378



--- Comment #13 from Michael Friedrich michael.friedr...@gmail.com ---
That issue flipped into the release, didn't catch up with the original
author/comitter yesterday.

I've poked Shawn to update the review spec file for the 1.11 release. There
shouldn't be any critical spec file changes between 1.10.x and 1.11.0.

If not, the patch applies cleanly against 1.10 tree too.
https://git.icinga.org/?p=icinga-core.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/support/1.10

-- 
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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378

Murray McAllister mmcal...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||mmcal...@redhat.com



--- Comment #12 from Murray McAllister mmcal...@redhat.com ---
Hi all,

If you have not already seen, some off-by-one flaws were fixed upstream:

https://git.icinga.org/?p=icinga-core.git;a=commitdiff;h=73285093b71a5551abdaab0a042d3d6bae093b0d

Could those fixes be included before the package is released into Fedora?

Reference:
http://seclists.org/oss-sec/2014/q1/571

Thanks,

--
Murray McAllister / Red Hat Security Response Team

-- 
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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378



--- Comment #11 from Michael Friedrich michael.friedr...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #10)
 (In reply to Michael Friedrich from comment #9)
  While the transition/upgrade from 1.x to 2.x may not be the easiest
  (although we're trying very hard), they can run side by side and won't harm
  each other. Having both packages installed won't hurt the system, they run
  happily on my laptop every day during development.
 
 EPEL packages shouldn't be bumped from 1.x series to 2.x series, once it
 gets into EPEL, nothing should be changed with the major version. For epel7,
 since it's not ready, we can bump to anuthing you want, so if we want to
 ship this package:

Still, if a package is named icinga and one icinga2, that would signal a
difference to the user, wouldn't it?


 
 1. Create a package icinga, with 2.x version, and then create a package
 icinga1, with 1.x version.
 
 2. Create icinga only with 2.x, seems objected by some people
 
 3. My opinion: create icinga only, but different version in different
 branch.
 
 Fedora ships 2.x, EPEL6 ships 1.x, EPEL7 ships 2.x.
 
 But it's still not a perfect idea IMO. :)
 
 4. Your opinion here.

Given the current stack of Icinga we have now

Supported

* Icinga Core, Classic UI, IDOUtils
* Icinga Web (1.0)
* Icinga Reporting (requires Jasperserver, cannot be packaged easily)

Unreleased - both are rewrites from scratch

* Icinga 2 (Core)
* Icinga Web (2.0)

The problem with versions on a single package reflecting 1.0 and 2.0 are most
likely that users expect a smooth transition and upgrade path. Which cannot be
guarantueed due to the nature of both being rewrites.

There are different modules around as well. In Icinga 1.x there's the NEB API
allowing binary modules to register callbacks. IDOUtils dumps them to the
database, others such as livestatus act as addon packages to be installed only
with Icinga 1.x
The Icinga 2 interfaces are binary incompatible with that NEB API. Still it
ships its own featureset as replacement (featues such as DB IDO, Livestatus,
etc directly implemented). The problem I do see here - the package names are
different in 1.x and 2.x

Therefore, I would still vote to bring 1.x as the standard packages into
Fedora/EPEL now, and then opt for the 2.x branch once it's become ready. And if
2.x must reside on an experimental repository tree due to problems with 2
different package versions - well, gotta live with that. It took long-term to
finally have php53 in RHEL5 anyways.

 
  Once Icinga (Web) 2.x are ready for their final releases (hopefully Q2 but
  never say never), packages and review requests should be pushed seperately
  imho. If you want to testdrive Icinga 2 RPMs - Snapshot SRPMs are available
  here http://packages.icinga.org/epel/6/snapshot/src/
 
 Which version is better, and can receive updates in the next 10 years?

Funny. The SUSE guys asked me the same question for SLES12. The 10 year support
strategy hurts, really. I do understand it, but from an open source project's
point of view it's hard to actually guarantuee that.

In any attempt, the 1.x branch will be supported as long as needed. There may
not be that many features in the future, but bug fixes, security issues, etc
will be resolved in short response times as already known from the past 5
years.

In terms of features and additions, the 2.x branch receives plenty of
development resources currently and probably will in the future, depending on
sponsors and contributions. Though it must be proven stable. 

Team Icinga doesn't have any numbers (Icinga doesn't phone home) of official
Icinga installations out there, but the 1.x branch is installed everywhere and
that won't change that soon in the next decade. The monitoring community is
somewhat lazy in terms of upgrading to new versions, and won't change running
systems.

Therefore going the 1.x route for stability is imho the right way.

Last but not least, we probably should move the discussion on the 2.x branch to
a seperate issue / mailinglist not to spam the review here.

-- 
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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378

Shawn Starr shawn.st...@rogers.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(shawn.starr@roger |
   |s.com)  |



--- Comment #8 from Shawn Starr shawn.st...@rogers.com ---
1.x and 2.x should be able to be both installed without conflicts, this is
something upstream has mentioned, as noted in .spec file.

-- 
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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378



--- Comment #9 from Michael Friedrich michael.friedr...@gmail.com ---
Just a short note with my lead core dev hat on:

Icinga 1.x is ~5 years old after forking from Nagios. It runs smooth and stable
in small and large scale environments and may act as drop-in Nagios replacement
with additional features. See
https://wiki.icinga.org/display/Dev/Bug+and+Feature+Comparison for a detailed
list.

Icinga 2.x is a complete rewrite from scratch providing compatible interfaces
(status files, DB IDO, Livestatus, Command Pipe, etc) whilst introducing a new
configuration format and additional features such as a native cluster stack
based on IPv4/6 and x509.

While the transition/upgrade from 1.x to 2.x may not be the easiest (although
we're trying very hard), they can run side by side and won't harm each other.
Having both packages installed won't hurt the system, they run happily on my
laptop every day during development.

The Icinga 1.x Classic UI is compatible with Icinga 2.x so at least a
requirement somehow. Although team Icinga is currently working on a new 2.0
Icinga Web which is probably ready soon.

In terms of the review I'd highly appreciate it if Icinga 1.x would hit Fedora
and EPEL7 after all those years. The community will definitely appreciate it.

Once Icinga (Web) 2.x are ready for their final releases (hopefully Q2 but
never say never), packages and review requests should be pushed seperately
imho. If you want to testdrive Icinga 2 RPMs - Snapshot SRPMs are available
here http://packages.icinga.org/epel/6/snapshot/src/

-- 
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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378



--- Comment #10 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Michael Friedrich from comment #9)
 While the transition/upgrade from 1.x to 2.x may not be the easiest
 (although we're trying very hard), they can run side by side and won't harm
 each other. Having both packages installed won't hurt the system, they run
 happily on my laptop every day during development.

EPEL packages shouldn't be bumped from 1.x series to 2.x series, once it gets
into EPEL, nothing should be changed with the major version. For epel7, since
it's not ready, we can bump to anuthing you want, so if we want to ship this
package:

1. Create a package icinga, with 2.x version, and then create a package
icinga1, with 1.x version.

2. Create icinga only with 2.x, seems objected by some people

3. My opinion: create icinga only, but different version in different branch.

Fedora ships 2.x, EPEL6 ships 1.x, EPEL7 ships 2.x.

But it's still not a perfect idea IMO. :)

4. Your opinion here.

 Once Icinga (Web) 2.x are ready for their final releases (hopefully Q2 but
 never say never), packages and review requests should be pushed seperately
 imho. If you want to testdrive Icinga 2 RPMs - Snapshot SRPMs are available
 here http://packages.icinga.org/epel/6/snapshot/src/

Which version is better, and can receive updates in the next 10 years?

-- 
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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378

Christos Triantafyllidis ctria...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ctria...@redhat.com,
   ||shawn.st...@rogers.com
  Flags||needinfo?(shawn.starr@roger
   ||s.com)



--- Comment #6 from Christos Triantafyllidis ctria...@redhat.com ---
I'll try to have a look on this over the weekend.

I'm not taking it yet in case someone else is faster or I fail to commit over
the weekend.

Something that I would like to understand first is how are you planning to
cover the upgrade from 1.x to 2.x. I understand there is a compatibility layer
between them but I'm not sure if it is a good idea to upgrade a package to a
major version within one release (either Fedora or EPEL).

Cheers,
Christos

-- 
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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378



--- Comment #7 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
I hope we can start from 2.x directly, to avoid the thorny 1.x- 2.x
upgrade(not update).

-- 
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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378



--- Comment #4 from Shawn Starr shawn.st...@rogers.com ---
Plan is have this for Fedora 19/20 and rawhide (21) then to EPEL7 (and EPEL 6).
We can have it as a feature but I am working with upstream directly:

Upstream ticket: https://dev.icinga.org/issues/5499

This is for 1.x for now we want 2.x also but got to get this first.

-- 
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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378



--- Comment #5 from Shawn Starr shawn.st...@rogers.com ---
I need a formal reviewer however. Barring none on this ticket I will email the
Server SIG group or ask some folks on IRC

-- 
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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378

Shawn Starr shawn.st...@rogers.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||mkir...@learn.senecac.on.ca



--- Comment #1 from Shawn Starr shawn.st...@rogers.com ---
*** Bug 693608 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

-- 
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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378

Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||oba...@redhat.com



--- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
*** Bug 1029087 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

-- 
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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378

Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

URL||https://fedoraproject.org/w
   ||iki/Features/Icinga
 CC||cicku...@gmail.com



--- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
I used to hope this could be a Fedora feature then, not sure if you are
interested as putting it into Fedora 21 Changes list?

-- 
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