[Bug 1129630] Review Request: riemann-c-client - The riemann C client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129630 Peter Czanik pcza...@fang.fa.gau.hu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2014-11-06 16:38:11 -- 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 1129630] Review Request: riemann-c-client - The riemann C client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129630 Peter Czanik pcza...@fang.fa.gau.hu changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1129630] Review Request: riemann-c-client - The riemann C client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129630 --- Comment #18 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1129630] Review Request: riemann-c-client - The riemann C client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129630 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1129630] Review Request: riemann-c-client - The riemann C client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129630 Peter Czanik pcza...@fang.fa.gau.hu changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #16 from Peter Czanik pcza...@fang.fa.gau.hu --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: riemann-c-client Short Description: The riemann C client Upstream URL: https://github.com/algernon/riemann-c-client Owners: czanik Branches: f21 epel7 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1129630] Review Request: riemann-c-client - The riemann C client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129630 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1129630] Review Request: riemann-c-client - The riemann C client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129630 --- Comment #17 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1129630] Review Request: riemann-c-client - The riemann C client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129630
Peter Borsa peter.bo...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #15 from Peter Borsa peter.bo...@gmail.com ---
MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.
MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is
used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create
a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create
that directory.
MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example.
MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content.
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition
of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to
size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
properly if it is not present.
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package.
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release}
MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built.
MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file,
and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need
a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with
any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you
feel that you have a good
[Bug 1129630] Review Request: riemann-c-client - The riemann C client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129630 Peter Borsa peter.bo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||peter.bo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|peter.bo...@gmail.com -- 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 1129630] Review Request: riemann-c-client - The riemann C client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129630 --- Comment #12 from Peter Borsa peter.bo...@gmail.com --- Peter, can you give us a version 3 of this package because I'll review it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1129630] Review Request: riemann-c-client - The riemann C client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129630 --- Comment #13 from Peter Czanik pcza...@fang.fa.gau.hu --- It's available at http://peter.czanik.hu/fedora/riemann-c-client-1.2.1-3.fc22.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 1129630] Review Request: riemann-c-client - The riemann C client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129630 --- Comment #14 from Peter Czanik pcza...@fang.fa.gau.hu --- The spec file is available at http://peter.czanik.hu/fedora/riemann-c-client.spec -- 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 1129630] Review Request: riemann-c-client - The riemann C client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129630 --- Comment #11 from Peter Czanik pcza...@fang.fa.gau.hu --- I see now the following options for going forward: - going with version 3 of the package (using chrpath) - going with version 4 of the package (using autoreconf) - remove the affected binary, as it's not for everyday use, just as a reference implementation. What do you think? -- 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 1129630] Review Request: riemann-c-client - The riemann C client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129630
--- Comment #6 from Peter Czanik pcza...@fang.fa.gau.hu ---
The upstream developer checked the problem and recommended to use github
generated sources instead of make dist generated sources and run autoreconf
-i as part of the package building process. According to him, Fedora uses a
modified libtool, which behaves differently than the one on his system.
Is such a change OK? (previously I was told, that the use of autotools is
discouraged) Here is a diff, how the spec file would change from the previously
posted version:
[czanik@localhost riemann-c-client]$ diff -u riemann-c-client.spec.old
riemann-c-client.spec
--- riemann-c-client.spec.old2014-08-15 10:11:58.280937822 +0200
+++ riemann-c-client.spec2014-08-15 11:26:49.345601699 +0200
@@ -6,15 +6,17 @@
Name:riemann-c-client
Version:1.2.1
-Release:3%{?dist}
+Release:4%{?dist}
Summary:The riemann C client
License:GPLv2
Url:https://github.com/algernon/riemann-c-client
-Source:
https://github.com/algernon/riemann-c-client/releases/download/riemann-c-client-%{version}/riemann-c-client-%{version}.tar.xz
+Source:
https://github.com/algernon/riemann-c-client/releases/download/riemann-c-client-%{version}/riemann-c-client-%{version}.tar.gz
BuildRequires:pkgconfig
BuildRequires:protobuf-c-devel
BuildRequires:json-c-devel
-BuildRequires:chrpath
+BuildRequires:autoconf
+BuildRequires:automake
+BuildRequires:libtool
%description
This is a C client library for the Riemann monitoring system, providing a
@@ -31,9 +33,10 @@
This package provides files necessary for riemann-c-client development.
%prep
-%setup -q
+%setup -q -n riemann-c-client-riemann-c-client-%{version}
%build
+autoreconf -i
%configure \
--disable-static \
--disable-rpath
@@ -43,8 +46,6 @@
%install
make DESTDIR=${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} install
-chrpath --delete $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/riemann-client
-
rm %{buildroot}/%{_libdir}/libriemann-client.la
%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
--
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 1129630] Review Request: riemann-c-client - The riemann C client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129630 --- Comment #7 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me --- Please consider using autoreconf -iv or autoreconf -fiv to get verbose output at lease(-f means force, treating all files obsolete). -- 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 1129630] Review Request: riemann-c-client - The riemann C client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129630 --- Comment #8 from Peter Czanik pcza...@fang.fa.gau.hu --- Done. New srpm and spec files are uploaded: Spec URL: http://peter.czanik.hu/fedora/riemann-c-client.spec SRPM URL: http://peter.czanik.hu/fedora/riemann-c-client-1.2.1-4.fc22.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 1129630] Review Request: riemann-c-client - The riemann C client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129630 --- Comment #9 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de --- I would have approved this package without autoreconf. But provided upstream refuses to correctly use the autotools and unable to provide proper tarballs (I.e. to run make dist), I'll step down from this 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 1129630] Review Request: riemann-c-client - The riemann C client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129630 --- Comment #10 from Peter Czanik pcza...@fang.fa.gau.hu --- In the previous, rev. 3 of the package I used the make dist tarball together with chrpath. I can revert to that, if that one is better. -- 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 1129630] Review Request: riemann-c-client - The riemann C client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129630 --- Comment #2 from Peter Czanik pcza...@fang.fa.gau.hu --- I prepared this package originally for SUSE, where I had to support everything from ancient SLES to latest openSUSE Factory release. But now I hope I cleaned up that mess properly :) New spec and source rpms are uploaded: Spec URL: http://peter.czanik.hu/fedora/riemann-c-client.spec SRPM URL: http://peter.czanik.hu/fedora/riemann-c-client-1.2.1-2.fc22.src.rpm The test suit does not seem to be ready yet: DEBUG: DEBUG: Testsuite summary for riemann-c-client 1.2.1 DEBUG: DEBUG: # TOTAL: 0 DEBUG: # PASS: 0 DEBUG: # SKIP: 0 DEBUG: # XFAIL: 0 DEBUG: # FAIL: 0 DEBUG: # XPASS: 0 DEBUG: # ERROR: 0 DEBUG: -- 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 1129630] Review Request: riemann-c-client - The riemann C client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129630
--- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me ---
Have been tracking this for months.
1. Requires:%{name} = %{version}
Requires:protobuf-c-devel
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
Thus:
Requires:%{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
Requires:protobuf-c-devel%{?_isa}
Just out of curiousity, why not add json-devel here as well?
2. %configure \
--disable-static
As you only use one option here, no need to use \.
3. %post
/sbin/ldconfig
%postun
/sbin/ldconfig
-
%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
4. In Fedora,
%dir %{_includedir}/riemann/
%dir %{_includedir}/riemann/proto/
%{_includedir}/riemann/*.h
%{_includedir}/riemann/proto/*.h
Can be:
%{_includedir}/riemann/
That's when you want to use a simpler way, not when you want to explicitly list
files.
5. Changelog invalid:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs
6. %setup -q -n riemann-c-client-%{version}
-
%setup -q
7. Source tag without full link.
8. Drop Group tag.
--
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 1129630] Review Request: riemann-c-client - The riemann C client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129630
--- Comment #4 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de ---
Some must fix issues:
1. Rpath.
You may want to apply the tricks described in
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Removing_Rpath
2. %isa
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
3. empty %clean
%clean is empty and thus is superflous
4. ChangeLog
The rest Christopher mentions is mosty personal preference.
--
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 1129630] Review Request: riemann-c-client - The riemann C client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129630 --- Comment #5 from Peter Czanik pcza...@fang.fa.gau.hu --- OK, I also added documentation and hopefully addressed all of the above mentioned problems. For now I used chrpath to fix the rpath issue, but also contacted the upstream developer (a colleague at BalaBit) to provide a proper fix for it in the next release of riemann-c-client. Spec URL: http://peter.czanik.hu/fedora/riemann-c-client.spec SRPM URL: http://peter.czanik.hu/fedora/riemann-c-client-1.2.1-2.fc22.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 1129630] Review Request: riemann-c-client - The riemann C client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129630 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rc040...@freenet.de --- Comment #1 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de --- This package needs quite some amount of work: * Many rpm anachronisms inside of this spec, which are not neccessary with modern rpm (BuildRoot, %defattr etc.) * The BR: xz is for the xz-compressed tarball? Rpm knows to handle xz-compressed tarballs for quite some time. * The package is not split into *-devel and main package properly. Only the *.so belongs into *devel, *.so.* into main * Don't ship *.la. * Feel strongly encouraged to not ship static libs (%configure --disable-static) If you insist on doing so, put them into a *-static subpackage. * The package seems to contain a test suite but doesn't exercise it? Is there a special reason for not doing so? * The %attr's are unnecessary and partially wrong (rpm warns about it). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
