[Bug 559699] Review Request: RE-REVIEW of qpid-cpp (rename of qpidc)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=559699 Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #14 from Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: qpid-cpp New Branches: epel7 Owners: mcpierce -- You are receiving this mail because: 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 559699] Review Request: RE-REVIEW of qpid-cpp (rename of qpidc)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=559699 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: 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 559699] Review Request: RE-REVIEW of qpid-cpp (rename of qpidc)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=559699 --- Comment #15 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: 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 559699] Review Request: RE-REVIEW of qpid-cpp (rename of qpidc)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=559699 --- Comment #11 from Fabio Massimo Di Nitto fdini...@redhat.com 2010-07-15 03:28:46 EDT --- Nuno, cvs has been done and all steps are completed, please follow up on this bug by closing or whatever step is required now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 559699] Review Request: RE-REVIEW of qpid-cpp (rename of qpidc)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=559699 Nuno Santos nsan...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 559699] Review Request: RE-REVIEW of qpid-cpp (rename of qpidc)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=559699 --- Comment #10 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2010-02-25 13:50:58 EST --- CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 559699] Review Request: RE-REVIEW of qpid-cpp (rename of qpidc)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=559699 Nuno Santos nsan...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Nuno Santos nsan...@redhat.com 2010-02-25 13:38:02 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: qpid-cpp Short Description: AMQP messaging based on Qpid apache.org project. Owners: nsantos Branches: devel F-13 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 559699] Review Request: RE-REVIEW of qpid-cpp (rename of qpidc)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=559699 --- Comment #8 from Nuno Santos nsan...@redhat.com 2010-02-25 13:30:48 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) For the sake of completeness, I've uploaded new versions of the SRPM and the specfile to the same URLs, to address the comments above. * qpid-cpp-server.i686: E: non-readable /var/lib/qpidd/qpidd.sasldb 0600 - this is supposed to non-readble Ok, I can see that in the spec file too and it is OK, but generally is a good idea to document in the spec file why. * qpid-cpp-server-store.i686: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/rhm 0775 - supposed to have those permissions same as above.. document why. Done, added the following comments to the specfile: # qpidd.sasldb contains sasl credentials, needs to be readable only by root %attr(600, qpidd, qpidd) %config(noreplace) %_localstatedir/lib/qpidd/qpidd.sasldb and # /var/rhm needs to be group writable so that journal files can be updated properly %attr(0775,qpidd,qpidd) %dir %_localstatedir/rhm * qpid-cpp-server-store.i686: E: explicit-lib-dependency libaio - there is no explicit lib dependency, there is a requires for a package named libaio: Requires: libaio (line 281) You have to drop the explicit Requires: libaio. rpm dependency resolver will add that automatically for you. Done. So just to make this quick, I´ll approve the rename of the package, but please fix those bits when importing into cvs. Thank you! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 559699] Review Request: RE-REVIEW of qpid-cpp (rename of qpidc)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=559699 Fabio Massimo Di Nitto fdini...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Fabio Massimo Di Nitto fdini...@redhat.com 2010-02-15 02:04:00 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) Fabio, please find updated SRPM and specfile at the same URLs: SRPM: http://people.redhat.com/~nsantos/qpid-cpp-0.5.829175-4.fc13.src.rpm spec: http://people.redhat.com/~nsantos/qpid-cpp.spec I put the patches back in, it's generating the correct version of .so now. Ok, the update/rename path looks good now and I was able to replace the old packages with no problems. Regarding the version, this is 0.5.829175-4, which is higher than what was in rawhide before (qpidc-0.5.819819-1.fc13), and the same codebase but a revision higher than what's in F12 (qpidc-0.5.829175-3.fc12). Ok. I fixed most of the warnings from rpmlint (except for no-documentation, etc), but these errors are still present (explanations for each are inline): * qpid-cpp-server.i686: E: non-readable /var/lib/qpidd/qpidd.sasldb 0600 - this is supposed to non-readble Ok, I can see that in the spec file too and it is OK, but generally is a good idea to document in the spec file why. * qpid-cpp-server-store.i686: E: explicit-lib-dependency libaio - there is no explicit lib dependency, there is a requires for a package named libaio: Requires: libaio (line 281) You have to drop the explicit Requires: libaio. rpm dependency resolver will add that automatically for you. * qpid-cpp-server-store.i686: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/rhm 0775 - supposed to have those permissions same as above.. document why. * ruby-qmf.i686: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/i386-linux/qmfengine.so ['/builddir/build/BUILD/qpidc-0.5.829175/cpp/src/.libs'] - not sure why it's complaining, I'm using the standard ruby_sitelib and ruby_sitearch macros, not hardcoding any path I won´t make this a blocker for the package to be renamed, but please cross check with ruby packaging policy and the ruby team. It might be a bug that´s been introduced on the ruby macro. So just to make this quick, I´ll approve the rename of the package, but please fix those bits when importing into cvs. Fabio -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 559699] Review Request: RE-REVIEW of qpid-cpp (rename of qpidc)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=559699 --- Comment #6 from Nuno Santos nsan...@redhat.com 2010-02-11 12:05:34 EST --- Fabio, please find updated SRPM and specfile at the same URLs: SRPM: http://people.redhat.com/~nsantos/qpid-cpp-0.5.829175-4.fc13.src.rpm spec: http://people.redhat.com/~nsantos/qpid-cpp.spec I put the patches back in, it's generating the correct version of .so now. Regarding the version, this is 0.5.829175-4, which is higher than what was in rawhide before (qpidc-0.5.819819-1.fc13), and the same codebase but a revision higher than what's in F12 (qpidc-0.5.829175-3.fc12). I fixed most of the warnings from rpmlint (except for no-documentation, etc), but these errors are still present (explanations for each are inline): * qpid-cpp-server.i686: E: non-readable /var/lib/qpidd/qpidd.sasldb 0600 - this is supposed to non-readble * qpid-cpp-server-store.i686: E: explicit-lib-dependency libaio - there is no explicit lib dependency, there is a requires for a package named libaio: Requires: libaio (line 281) * qpid-cpp-server-store.i686: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/rhm 0775 - supposed to have those permissions * ruby-qmf.i686: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/i386-linux/qmfengine.so ['/builddir/build/BUILD/qpidc-0.5.829175/cpp/src/.libs'] - not sure why it's complaining, I'm using the standard ruby_sitelib and ruby_sitearch macros, not hardcoding any path Nuno -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 559699] Review Request: RE-REVIEW of qpid-cpp (rename of qpidc)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=559699 --- Comment #4 from Nuno Santos nsan...@redhat.com 2010-02-08 16:25:13 EST --- Fabio, as you had requested earlier, I isolated the changes related to the package renaming and applied them to the sources and specfile currently present in F12. The revised SRPM and specfile are available for your review at: SRPM: http://people.redhat.com/~nsantos/qpid-cpp-0.5.829175-4.fc13.src.rpm spec: http://people.redhat.com/~nsantos/qpid-cpp.spec There are two patches to allow compilation under rawhide, they are being (or are already) integrated upstream. Thanks, Nuno -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 559699] Review Request: RE-REVIEW of qpid-cpp (rename of qpidc)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=559699 Nuno Santos nsan...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #3 from Nuno Santos nsan...@redhat.com 2010-02-04 14:02:47 EST --- Fabio, thank you for picking up the review -- much appreciated! I've added the missing Provides: entries (the renamed package fully replaces the previous one) and uploaded the new versions of the specfile and SRPM to the same place. Regarding the amount of changes, the rawhide version of qpidc hadn't been updated in a while because of the impending rename, but the F11 and F12 versions are identical to what is included in this rename. Thank you, Nuno -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 559699] Review Request: RE-REVIEW of qpid-cpp (rename of qpidc)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=559699 --- Comment #1 from Fabio Massimo Di Nitto fdini...@redhat.com 2010-02-02 08:10:40 EST --- Following the Package_Renaming_Process, I ack that this is a rename of the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 559699] Review Request: RE-REVIEW of qpid-cpp (rename of qpidc)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=559699
--- Comment #2 from Fabio Massimo Di Nitto fdini...@redhat.com 2010-02-02
08:43:54 EST ---
Hi Nuno,
the new package introduces a lot of changes compared to what is in fedora-cvs
qpidc/devel.
It would be a lot simpler if the srpm/spec file to review contains _only_ the
changes related to the rename process otherwise every added change has to be
re-reviewed.
The question I have for you (for eg.):
(from qpidc)
%package -n %{srv}-cluster
becomes:
(from the new one)
%package -n %{name}-server-cluster
Obsoletes: qpidd-cluster
but there is no Provides: entry.
I suggest for you to review:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Renaming.2Freplacing_existing_packages
and if the entries in the new spec files are correct, then add a note that the
new package does not fully replace the old one.
Thanks
Fabio
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
