[Bug 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 Peter Bieringer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||p...@bieringer.de --- Comment #36 from Peter Bieringer --- I'm using internally since some time an RPM based originally on a Mandrake RPM. Incorporated some suggestions from IP2Locations's original RPM: ftp://ftp.bieringer.de/pub/linux/repo/SRPMS/IP2Location-7.0.1-4.fc21.src.rpm also separated the databases into dedicated RPM like newest GeoIP also does: ftp://ftp.bieringer.de/pub/linux/repo/SRPMS/IP2Location-Lite-data-2015.05-0.fc21.src.rpm koji builds ran fine: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9646514 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9646574 Would be great if one can review that src.rpm, perhaps they are better than the original ones from IP2Location. BTW: the license of IP2Location-Lite-data (http://lite.ip2location.com/database-ip-country) "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License" is currently not recognized by rpmlint - any hints how to fix this? -- 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 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 guru2018 changed: What|Removed |Added Hardware|Unspecified |All OS|Unspecified |Linux -- 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 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 Petr Šabata changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- 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 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 --- Comment #1 from guru2018 --- This is duplicate of, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1052060 -- 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 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||cicku...@gmail.com Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2014-03-27 10:14:59 --- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1052060 *** -- 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 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |NEW Resolution|DUPLICATE |--- Keywords||Reopened -- 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 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added CC||chrislim2...@yahoo.com --- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng --- *** Bug 1052060 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 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 Michael Schwendt changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard||NotReady --- Comment #4 from Michael Schwendt --- > guru2018 2014-03-27 06:05:55 EDT > Guru Please fill in your full name in the bugzilla account preferences. > SRPM URL: http://www.ip2location.com/rpm/ip2location-c-6.0.3-1.fc17.i686.rpm That's not a source RPM package. During package review, if you keep the "Spec URL:" and "SRPM URL:" lines up-to-date, you can point the fedora-review tool at this ticket and let it perform many helpful checks: fedora-review -b 1081434 Clear the 'NotReady' tag from the ticket's Whiteboard when there is something to review. > http://www.ip2location.com/rpm/ip2location-c-6.0.3-1.fc17.i686.rpm Not repeating the comments on bug 1052060, but listing the package contents reveals that the /usr/include/IP2Locone directory is not included (and that's not a thing specific to packaging for Fedora): $ rpmls -p ip2location-c-6.0.3-1.fc17.i686.rpm -rw-r--r-- /usr/include/IP2Loc/IP2Loc_DBInterface.h -rw-r--r-- /usr/include/IP2Loc/IP2Location.h -rw-r--r-- /usr/include/IP2Loc/imath.h lrwxrwxrwx /usr/lib/libIP2Location.so lrwxrwxrwx /usr/lib/libIP2Location.so.1 -rwxr-xr-x /usr/lib/libIP2Location.so.1.0.0 drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/doc/ip2location-c-6.0.3 -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/ip2location-c-6.0.3/Developers_Guide.txt -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/ip2location-c-6.0.3/README https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership -> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories -- 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 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 --- Comment #5 from guru2018 --- Hello Michael Schwendt, Thanks for the comments. Link issue for the source rpm is fixed. Updated SRPM and SPEC file. Spec URL: http://www.ip2location.com/rpm/ip2location-c.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ip2location.com/rpm/ip2location-c-6.0.3-1.fc17.src.rpm License is changed to "LGPLv3" and updated the COPYING file. I have address all the comments, expect one related license clarification. In the fedora-review command its showing four files as "unknown or generated". Is this is the reason you are asked for License clarification, it that case i can update the source code with license information. Looking forward for any other comments you have. Guru -- 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 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 guru2018 changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard|NotReady| -- 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 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 --- Comment #6 from Christopher Meng --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #4) > > guru2018 2014-03-27 06:05:55 EDT > > Guru > > Please fill in your full name in the bugzilla account preferences. Please do that. Bugzilla is not similar to forum or online chat. -- 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 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 --- Comment #7 from Guruswamy Basavaiah --- Updated the preference with full name. -- 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 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434
--- Comment #8 from Michael Schwendt ---
> Name: ip2location-c
> Summary: IP2location headers, libraries
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Summary_and_description
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Examples_of_good_package_summaries
Only repeating the name of the software/package typically is not a good
summary. Plus, the base package does not contain any headers anymore. One
rather obvious and generic summary would be:
Summary: Geo IP solution library
The %description expands on that.
Run rpmlint (or rpmlint -i for more helpful output) on the src.rpm and all
built rpms. Feel free to ignore obvious false positives in the report, but fix
anything else. Preferably add a comment here about whether/when you think what
rpmlint reports is correct or incorrect.
> Group:Development/Libraries
The base package group for runtime libraries is "System Environment/Libraries".
> %clean
> rm -rf %{buildroot}
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean
> %files
> %defattr(-,root,root,-)
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions
> %package devel
> Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
> Provides: ip2location-c-devel = %{version}-%{release}
> Obsoletes: ip2location-c-devel < %{version}-%{release}
These two lines make no sense at all. The subpackage is named
ip2location-c-devel already. There are automatic Provides for it - just query
the built rpms and examine them.
> Is this is the reason you are asked for License clarification
Not only.
1) The source files ought to contain a reference to the used license:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NoticeInSourceFile
2) Also consider including a copy of the GPL to follow this advice:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v3HowToUpgrade
3) An old copy of the imath library is bundled, which applies "MIT/X11 (BSD
like" licensing terms:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios
https://github.com/creachadair/imath
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries
--
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 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 Guruswamy Basavaiah changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard||NotReady -- 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 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 --- Comment #10 from Guruswamy Basavaiah --- Created attachment 885278 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=885278&action=edit rpmlint -i on the all package rpms -- 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 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 Guruswamy Basavaiah changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard|NotReady| -- 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 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 --- Comment #9 from Guruswamy Basavaiah --- Latest src rpm and the spec file is uploaded. Spec URL: http://www.ip2location.com/rpm/ip2location-c.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ip2location.com/rpm/ip2location-c-6.0.3-1.fc17.src.rpm All comments except the Licensing related comments are fixed. Related to license, 1) I have included both GPL and LGPL Licenses. 2) Individual source code are updated with the LGPL notice. Related to license bundling, i am working on the removal of dependency on the iMath source code. With this removal of dependency, we don't need license clarification. ? I have attached output of the rpmlint -i on all the rpm's. I have mentioned the reason for ignoring the false warning's inside the attached text file. Please let me know if you have any other concerns or comments. -- 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 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 --- Comment #11 from Guruswamy Basavaiah --- Hello Michael Schwendt, Any concerns or comments apart from license clarification ? -- 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 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 --- Comment #12 from Michael Schwendt --- Comments? Well, I'm not sure about the target group and usefulness of the library, if there's only a .bin pregenerated sample database. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packages_which_are_not_useful_without_external_bits That's why I focus on general packaging issues. * A newer rpmlint/rpmbuild (such as Fedora 20) reports: ip2location-c.src: E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog: Wed Apr 10 2014 Guruswamy Basavaiah 6.0.3-1 * Oddities in the x86_64 build.log: > checking size of long... 0 > checking size of off_t... 0 0? Running a koji scratch-build (or using "copr") and eliminating compiler warnings found in the build output is highly recommended. > /bin/sh ../libtool --tag=CC --mode=link gcc -IiMath/ -O2 -g -pipe -Wall > -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong > --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -m64 -mtune=generic -lrt > -module -no-undefined -version-info 1:0:0 -Wl,-z,relro -L/usr/lib > -R/usr/lib -o libIP2Location.la -rpath /usr/lib64 > libIP2Location_la-IP2Location.lo libIP2Location_la-IP2Loc_DBInterface.lo > libIP2Location_la-imath.lo /usr/lib? libtool: link: DIE_RPATH_DIE="/usr/lib:" gcc -I../libIP2Location/iMath -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -m64 -mtune=generic -Wl,-z -Wl,relro -o .libs/test-IP2Location test_IP2Location-test-IP2Location.o -L/usr/lib ../libIP2Location/.libs/libIP2Location.so -lrt /usr/lib? > i am working on the removal of dependency on the iMath source code. > With this removal of dependency, we don't need license clarification. ? Removing the bundled imath source code is one option. Packaging imath as a separate package might be another option. Requesting a bundling exception from the Fedora Packaging Committee (FPC) is another option. I'm not familiar with imath - is it a "copylib"? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Copylibs The imath licensing terms give permission to merge the source code into another project (and the built binary library will be LGPLv3+ in this particular case, regardless of whether imath is built in), but they also ask for the copyright+license preamble to "be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software", which complicates the licensing/relicensing and the tracking of modifications of the merged software (and what to do with its original licensing model when modifying it substantially). -- 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 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 Guruswamy Basavaiah changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard||NotReady -- 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 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 Guruswamy Basavaiah changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard|NotReady| --- Comment #13 from Guruswamy Basavaiah --- Spec URL: http://www.ip2location.com/rpm/ip2location-c.spec SRPMS URL: http://www.ip2location.com/rpm/ip2location-c-6.0.3-1.fc20.src.rpm Hello, Following issues are fixed in the above rpm. 1) iMath library dependency is removed. 2) size checking long and off_t to 0 is fixed. 3) "/usr/lib? " removed. 4) Ran rpmlint in F20, and fixed the date issue 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 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 Guruswamy Basavaiah changed: What|Removed |Added CC||guru2...@gmail.com --- Comment #14 from Guruswamy Basavaiah --- Hello, Also 1) scratch build is done in koji server and its success full. 2) All compiler warnings are fixed. -- 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 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434
Paulo Andrade changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr
||a...@gmail.com
--- Comment #15 from Paulo Andrade
---
You can run something like "fedora-review -b 1081434" to
mimic what a reviewer would do.
You should have a %check section. This helps the reviewer
to be more confident that the package is functional. Should
be somewhat like:
%check
LD_LIBRARY_PATH=%{buildroot}%{_libdir}:$LD_LIBRARY_PATH make check
---%<---
I did run it directly from the build, and it fails:
$ LD_LIBRARY_PATH=../libIP2Location/.libs make check
[...]
$ cat test-suite.log
===
IP2Loc 6.0.3: test/test-suite.log
===
# TOTAL: 1
# PASS: 0
# SKIP: 0
# XFAIL: 0
# FAIL: 1
# XPASS: 0
# ERROR: 0
.. contents:: :depth: 2
FAIL: test-IP2Location
==
IP2Location IPv4 Testing passed.
Test IP Address 2001:0D30:010E:: (Test 11) failed. We got - but expected LA,
Test IP Address 2001:4830:00EA:: (Test 12) failed. We got - but expected US,
Test IP Address 2001:0200:0b01:: (Test 13) failed. We got - but expected JP,
Test IP Address 2001:0388:f000:: (Test 14) failed. We got - but expected AU,
---%<---
There is a bogus wrapper.log file in the tarball btw, that apparently is
from some failed java interface test.
I did a quick look in the sources, and this is a really bad way
to check for big endian :-)
---%<---
#ifdef _SUN_
char * p = (char *) &ret;
/* for SUN SPARC, have to reverse the byte order */
[...]
#else
[...]
#endif
---%<---
This will fail for fedora powerpc64 that is big endian.
It could be interesting if you talk with geoip and geoip-lite
packages maintainer. Apparently a Red Hat employee that should
also be well aware of all issues (as well as legal ones, as I
understand you cannot distribute for free the full database).
But the geoip* packages appear to be in an inconsistent state...
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/geoip-geolite/
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/geoip-geolite.git/
and being replaced by a geoip package:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=968074
Do you have any pointers to packages/projects using ip2location?
That could help in bringing more interest from people on it, e.g.
apparently spamassassin uses geoip.
--
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 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 --- Comment #16 from Guruswamy Basavaiah --- Hello Paulo Andrade, Thank for the comments, Will fix the above mentioned comments and upload the package. Guru -- 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 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 Patrick Uiterwijk changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||puiterw...@redhat.com Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|puiterw...@redhat.com --- Comment #17 from Patrick Uiterwijk --- I am really doubtful about the inclusion of the database. For first, I think it would be best to have a seperate package for the database, so someone could update the database seperately from the code. Also, I wonder about the licensing: is this database exempt from the "Terms of Use" on your website, as those are incompatible with Fedora licensing? Also, would it be possible to ship CSV versions in the upstream tarball, and then compile them to the binary database on package build? I will officially claim this review, and hence clear the NEEDSPONSOR flag. Please note that this in no way implies that I will approve it yet, as I might still deny it if the licensing issues regarding the database are not resolved for example. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- 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 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 Patrick Uiterwijk changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(guru2...@gmail.co ||m) -- 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 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 Guruswamy Basavaiah changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(guru2...@gmail.co | |m) | --- Comment #18 from Guruswamy Basavaiah --- 1) Yes, we can have a separate package for the database, but we will be using same upstream tar ball as of the main package. 2) This database is exempted from the "Terms of Use" of our website. Its free for both personal and commercial usage. 3) Yes, its possible to ship the cvs version of the database and convert it into to binary package during the building. Currently i am working on this. I will upload the new spec file and SRPM ASAP. Guru -- 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 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 --- Comment #19 from Guruswamy Basavaiah --- Spec URL: http://www.ip2location.com/rpm/ip2location-c.spec SRPMS URL: http://www.ip2location.com/rpm/ip2location-c-6.0.3-1.fc20.src.rpm Following comments are fixed. 1) DB is placed in separate rpm. 2) Binary DB is converted from CVS file. No binary DB in the source tar ball. 3) Added "make check" to spec file. (Some issue with amd arch. I am checking it.) 4) Handled PPC compilation. -- 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 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 --- Comment #20 from Patrick Uiterwijk --- Thanks for the fixes, but i686 doesn't even build, which is one of the primary architectures: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6925071 Please try a scratch build to see if at least the primary architectures build successfully. -- 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 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 --- Comment #21 from Guruswamy Basavaiah --- Before i updated the post, i had checked the scratch build. It was building successfully for all ARCH except for ARM. I check again, it builds. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6928057 Could you please check, below RPM is used when u build. SRPMS URL: http://www.ip2location.com/rpm/ip2location-c-6.0.3-1.fc20.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 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 --- Comment #22 from Guruswamy Basavaiah --- Do you have any other comments or concerns ? -- 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 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 --- Comment #23 from Michael Schwendt --- Did you change the src.rpm since comment 20? That doesn't become clear, if you never increase the Release value: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FrequentlyMadeMistakes | Increase the "Release" tag every time you upload a new package to avoid | confusion. The reviewer and other interested parties probably still have | older versions of your SRPM lying around to check what has changed between | the old and new packages; those get confused when the revision didn't change. You also need to maintain a proper %changelog in the spec file that would tell in which way you've changed the spec/package, especially if it fixed an issue. In either case, if you visit the i686 build job output from comment 20, http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6925071 -> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6925074 -> https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/5074/6925074/build.log you can see that it failed in %check. The src.rpm from comment 21 doesn't give a hint whether that failure has been fixed. -- 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 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 --- Comment #24 from Guruswamy Basavaiah --- I will update the new src rpm, with change log updated and fix for arm arch failure ASAP. -- 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 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 --- Comment #25 from Guruswamy Basavaiah --- SRPM URL: http://www.ip2location.com/rpm/ip2location-c-6.0.3-2.fc20.src.rpm SPEC URL: http://www.ip2location.com/rpm/ip2location-c.spec Koji link for success full scratch build. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7076649 This rpm contains fix for both search failure in x86_64 and arm.(Issue was in ipaddress conversion from string to binary had a problem, because of this, make check was failing in both x86_64 and arm.) Please let me know, if there are any more concerns. -- 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 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 --- Comment #26 from Guruswamy Basavaiah --- If no more comments, could this review request for package be approved ? -- 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 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|Reopened|
--- Comment #27 from Christopher Meng ---
(In reply to Guruswamy Basavaiah from comment #26)
> If no more comments, could this review request for package be approved ?
Why do you think so? Is this package perfect? Absolutely not.
1. Source0:http://www.ip2location.com/downloads/ip2location-c-6.0.3.tar.gz
If you don't want to make it harder, please use this:
Source0:
http://www.ip2location.com/downloads/ip2location-c-%{version}.tar.gz
2. The above one is cosmetic, however the below context is really problematic
%package data
Summary:Country DB for IP2Location C library
Group:Applications/Databases
Requires:%{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
%description data
IP2Location Country DB contains IP address to country mapping. DB can be
accessed with IP2Location C library.
The reason you split should be reducing the size of the package, however if you
don't mark it as BuildArch: noarch, I don't see any benefits here.
And if you mark it as noarch, this line should be modified:
Requires:%{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
to
Requires:%{name} = %{version}-%{release}
3. What's the license of the BIN data?
4. %doc Developers_Guide.txt LICENSE.GPLv3 LICENSE.LGPLv3
I disagree of putting the dev guide into main package. You should put it in the
-devel subpkg.
5. You declared that this package is License:LGPLv3, as mentioned above,
there are 2 license file in the main package, superfluous or mistake?
6. Is the -data needed for the runtime library? If so you should add Requires
in the main package, if not you should modify you %description of main package:
IP-COUNTRY LITE database file that is accurate as of April 2014.
Users can download the latest LITE database from IP2Location web site.
7. You can drop Group tag if you don't want to support RHEL5 (I guess so).
8. I couldn't find any info of version 6.0.3 from
http://www.ip2location.com/developers/c
so far.
9. You should take some reviews as informal reviews to prove yourself competent
to be a packager. But that's up to the reviewer(same as your sponsor since it's
your first 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 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434
--- Comment #28 from Guruswamy Basavaiah ---
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #27)
SPEC URL: http://www.ip2location.com/rpm/ip2location-c.spec
1. Source0:http://www.ip2location.com/downloads/ip2location-c-6.0.3.tar.gz
If you don't want to make it harder, please use this:
Source0:
http://www.ip2location.com/downloads/ip2location-c-%{version}.tar.gz
2. The above one is cosmetic, however the below context is really problematic
%package data
Summary:Country DB for IP2Location C library
Group:Applications/Databases
Requires:%{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
%description data
IP2Location Country DB contains IP address to country mapping. DB can be
accessed with IP2Location C library.
The reason you split should be reducing the size of the package, however if you
don't mark it as BuildArch: noarch, I don't see any benefits here.
And if you mark it as noarch, this line should be modified:
Requires:%{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
to
Requires:%{name} = %{version}-%{release}
3. What's the license of the BIN data?
4. %doc Developers_Guide.txt LICENSE.GPLv3 LICENSE.LGPLv3
I disagree of putting the dev guide into main package. You should put it in the
-devel subpkg.
5. You declared that this package is License:LGPLv3, as mentioned above,
there are 2 license file in the main package, superfluous or mistake?
superfluous, as suggested by Michael Schwendt in comment 8.
6. Is the -data needed for the runtime library? If so you should add Requires
in the main package, if not you should modify you %description of main package:
IP-COUNTRY LITE database file that is accurate as of April 2014.
Users can download the latest LITE database from IP2Location web site.
7. You can drop Group tag if you don't want to support RHEL5 (I guess so).
8. I couldn't find any info of version 6.0.3 from
http://www.ip2location.com/developers/c
so far.
--
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 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 --- Comment #29 from Michael Schwendt --- > 5. Yes, it's LGPLv3 that needs the GPLv3 file to be included: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v3HowToUpgrade -- 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 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 --- Comment #30 from Guruswamy Basavaiah --- Updating both spec and src rpm together. SPEC URL: http://www.ip2location.com/rpm/ip2location-c.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ip2location.com/rpm/ip2location-c-6.0.3-3.fc20.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 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 --- Comment #31 from Guruswamy Basavaiah --- Any more comments or can this package be approved if no more comments. -- 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 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 --- Comment #32 from Guruswamy Basavaiah --- As there were no comments for long time, can this package be approved now, if there are no more comments. ? -- 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 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 --- Comment #33 from Michael Schwendt --- * Patrick has announced that he may sponsor your packager account, see comment 17, so it might be better to talk to him directly. * The fedora-review tool is happy about the package now, except for a few false positives and/or things the tool is not good at. * What puzzles me, however, is that since the beginning of this review, you've modified the source tarball for fixes instead of applying patch files from within the spec file: 467818 Mar 31 20:47 ip2location-c-6.0.3.tar.gz 764981 Apr 10 21:08 ip2location-c-6.0.3.tar.gz 3145564 Jul 8 04:32 ip2location-c-6.0.3.tar.gz This is very unusual and when it's the release habit of some upstream developers, it's a bad habit. :( * The source tarball contains a couple of documentation files (most noticably the README and the ChangeLog), which are not included in the RPM packages. * I have doubts about the -data subpackage. It's a "demo" database, yet the library strictly requires it. This complicates replacing it with another (more complete) database. The smarter packaging would _not_ have the library strictly require the -data subpkg, but require on a package capability, a "Provides" within the -data subpkg. That way there could be other packages that provide the same thing, and the user could use either one. -- 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 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 --- Comment #34 from Christopher Meng --- (In reply to Guruswamy Basavaiah from comment #32) > As there were no comments for long time, can this package be approved now, > if there are no more comments. ? What makes you conclude "no comments for long time" so "this package can be approved now"??? Why so hasty??? Get yourself sponsored 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 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 --- Comment #35 from Guruswamy Basavaiah --- In replay to Michael Schwendt comment #33 SPEC URL: http://www.ip2location.com/rpm/ip2location-c.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ip2location.com/rpm/ip2location-c-6.0.3-4.fc20.src.rpm 1) Okay, I will contact him directly. 2) Okay. 3) I am the upstream developer of ip2location, hence no patches were created directly upstream source tar ball was modified. 4) Documentation files are included now. 5) Agreed with you. Removed the required tag and introduced provides tag in data 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 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ppi...@redhat.com Assignee|puiterw...@redhat.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 --- Comment #37 from Peter Bieringer --- Just note that the source code has moved to https://github.com/chrislim2888/IP2Location-C-Library and there is a spec file in subdirectory "contrib" which at least works up to EL7 and F31. -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 Petr Menšík changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pemen...@redhat.com --- Comment #38 from Petr Menšík --- (In reply to Peter Bieringer from comment #37) > Just note that the source code has moved to > https://github.com/chrislim2888/IP2Location-C-Library and there is a spec > file in subdirectory "contrib" which at least works up to EL7 and F31. Because original spec links do not work anymore, it is not possible to continue with review. If you have alternative URLs, please specify them with SPEC URL: and SRPM URL: prefixes. It seems original author does not continue in this review, maybe I would create a new review with updated SRPM and sources. -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 --- Comment #39 from Peter Bieringer --- is the spec file store here not working anymore? https://github.com/chrislim2888/IP2Location-C-Library/tree/master/contrib SRPMS is no longer provided to my knowledge, so spec file has to point to tarball tagged in github, e.g. https://github.com/chrislim2888/IP2Location-C-Library/archive/8.0.9.tar.gz -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 Michael C changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikecamer...@gmail.com --- Comment #40 from Michael C --- Any update on the 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 --- Comment #41 from Peter Bieringer --- No clue, but if one setup it in EPEL, I can at least co-maintain as I'm creating local RPM anyhow from time to time for my servers -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 --- Comment #42 from Michael C --- (In reply to Petr Menšík from comment #38) > (In reply to Peter Bieringer from comment #37) > > Just note that the source code has moved to > > https://github.com/chrislim2888/IP2Location-C-Library and there is a spec > > file in subdirectory "contrib" which at least works up to EL7 and F31. > > Because original spec links do not work anymore, it is not possible to > continue with review. If you have alternative URLs, please specify them with > SPEC URL: and SRPM URL: prefixes. > It seems original author does not continue in this review, maybe I would > create a new review with updated SRPM and sources. Do you have any suggestion? We would like to see this library review. We will need a maintainer. -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 --- Comment #43 from Peter Bieringer --- If no maintainer will be found, I can act as (ipv6calc is supporting that library anyhow) btw: RPM build from current source works fine (beside some minor compiler warnings, which I have already fixed in my fork): wget https://github.com/chrislim2888/IP2Location-C-Library/archive/8.0.9.tar.gz rpmbuild -ts 8.0.9.tar.gz rpmbuild --rebuild IP2Location-8.0.9-5.el8.src.rpm > in source included spec file is at least working => have I to apply for maintainer or can one trigger the workflow? Beside that, the RPM name should be proper defined in advance: a) suggestion from 2014: ip2location-c b) current github project: IP2Location-C-Library I would vote for b) in alignment to GeoIP-* -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 --- Comment #44 from Peter Bieringer --- sorry: forgot to mention option c) c) IP2Location -> I will vote for c) instead of b) as this is the current definition also 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com --- Comment #45 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 --- (In reply to Peter Bieringer from comment #43) > If no maintainer will be found, I can act as (ipv6calc is supporting that > library anyhow) > > btw: RPM build from current source works fine (beside some minor compiler > warnings, which I have already fixed in my fork): > > wget > https://github.com/chrislim2888/IP2Location-C-Library/archive/8.0.9.tar.gz > rpmbuild -ts 8.0.9.tar.gz > rpmbuild --rebuild IP2Location-8.0.9-5.el8.src.rpm > > > in source included spec file is at least working > > > => have I to apply for maintainer or can one trigger the workflow? > > Beside that, the RPM name should be proper defined in advance: > > a) suggestion from 2014: ip2location-c > > b) current github project: IP2Location-C-Library > > I would vote for b) in alignment to GeoIP-* If you want to maintain this, start a new review request with you SPEC and SRPM. Then close this bug as a Duplicate of yours. -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 Peter Bieringer changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed|2014-03-27 14:14:59 |2020-08-27 19:43:34 --- Comment #46 from Peter Bieringer --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1873302 *** -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
