[Bug 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
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=576591 --- Comment #25 from Nikola Pajkovsky 2011-12-20 10:36:26 EST --- new status of iptraf-ng ipcsum.c - rewritten mode.c- removed bar.c - licence changed cidr.c- licence changed getpath.c - licence changed tr.c - licence changed build is in koji http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3595694 http://npajkovs.fedorapeople.org/iptraf-ng.spec http://npajkovs.fedorapeople.org/iptraf-ng-1.1.0.rc0-1.el6.src.rpm -- 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 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
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=576591 --- Comment #26 from Terje Røsten 2011-12-20 15:25:02 EST --- We are soon there, some small things from rpmlint: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.1.0-rc0-1 ['1.1.0.rc0-1.fc14', '1.1.0.rc0-1'] E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/iptraf-ng-1.1.0.rc0/LICENSE W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/iptraf-ng-1.1.0.rc0/INSTALL W: non-ghost-in-var-lock /var/lock/iptraf-ng Fix these and we should be all good. At least fix the error about address. -- 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 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
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=576591 --- Comment #27 from Nikola Pajkovsky 2012-01-05 04:04:00 EST --- W: non-ghost-in-var-lock /var/lock/iptraf-ng I don't have any idea, how did you get above message. All, except incoherent-version-in-changelog, warnings and error are fixed. I'm auto generating spec version of iptraf-ng from current git version, and will be off almost every time, except the time of tagging of new version in git. http://npajkovs.fedorapeople.org/iptraf-ng-1.1.0.rc0.1.gfe0c-2.el6.src.rpm please pick spec file from srpm -- 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 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
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=576591 Terje Røsten changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #28 from Terje Røsten 2012-01-05 14:56:30 EST --- Thanks, package iptrag-ng is APPROVED. -- 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 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
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=576591 --- Comment #29 from Nikola Pajkovsky 2012-01-05 21:29:26 EST --- juuuhuuu! many thanks for review please create someone git repo for f15 till the rawhide -- 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 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
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=576591 --- Comment #30 from Terje Røsten 2012-01-06 10:42:47 EST --- Please create a proper SCM request: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests -- 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 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
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=576591 Nikola Pajkovsky changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- 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 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
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=576591 --- Comment #31 from Nikola Pajkovsky 2012-01-10 07:39:09 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: iptraf-ng Short Description: A console-based network monitoring utility Owners: npajkovs Branches: f15 f16 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 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
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=576591 --- Comment #32 from Jon Ciesla 2012-01-10 08:01:01 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
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=576591 --- Comment #33 from Nikola Pajkovsky 2012-01-24 09:34:47 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: iptraf-ng Short Description: A console-based network monitoring utility Owners: npajkovs Branches: el5 el6 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 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
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=576591 --- Comment #34 from Terje Røsten 2012-02-01 17:07:13 EST --- Please close ticket if package is imported. -- 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 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
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=576591 Nikola Pajkovsky changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-02-02 04:13:13 -- 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 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
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=576591 --- Comment #35 from Juha Tuomala 2012-02-02 05:07:57 EST --- EPEL builds would be highly appreciated. -- 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 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
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=576591 --- Comment #36 from Nikola Pajkovsky 2012-02-02 05:25:38 EST --- I'm going to create another ticket for rel-eng -- 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 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
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=576591 Nikola Pajkovsky changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|CURRENTRELEASE | Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? Keywords||Reopened --- Comment #37 from Nikola Pajkovsky 2012-02-07 01:49:16 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: iptraf-ng Short Description: A console-based network monitoring utility Owners: npajkovs Branches: el5 el6 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 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
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=576591 --- Comment #38 from Jon Ciesla 2012-02-07 08:35:15 EST --- Already exists, to create new branches submit a Package Change request. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests Thanks! -- 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 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
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=576591 Nikola Pajkovsky changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed|2012-02-02 04:13:13 |2012-02-07 11:54:23 --- Comment #39 from Nikola Pajkovsky 2012-02-07 11:54:23 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: iptraf-ng New Branches: el5 el6 Owners: npajkovs -- 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 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
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=576591 Nikola Pajkovsky changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- 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 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
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=576591 --- Comment #40 from Jon Ciesla 2012-02-08 08:10:37 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
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=576591
--- Comment #9 from Nikola Pajkovsky 2011-01-25 08:12:42
EST ---
http://npajkovs.fedorapeople.org/iptraf-ng.spec
http://npajkovs.fedorapeople.org/iptraf-ng-1.0.3.52.gdaa1-1.fc15.src.rpm
got rid of %{__boohoo}, proper Obsoletes/Provides pair. There is a lot of more
under hood.
--
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 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
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=576591 --- Comment #10 from Terje Røsten 2011-01-26 04:53:34 EST --- Thanks, this is starting to look good. Some warnings from rpmlint: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 12) - convert tabs in Obsoletes: and Provides: to spaces. W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes iptraf W self-obsoletion iptraf obsoletes iptraf = 1.0.3.52.gdaa1-1.fc14 - these seems dangerous, W: invalid-url Source0: https://fedorahosted.org/releases/i/p/iptraf-ng/iptraf-ng-1.0.3.52.gdaa1.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found - can't find the tarball on the website, would also be nice to remove the gdaa1 postfix. W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0.2-3 ['1.0.3.52.gdaa1-1.fc14', '1.0.3.52.gdaa1-1'] - easy to fix W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man8/iptraf-ng.8.gz 27: warning: macro `Biptraf' not defined Fix these and I will do the formal review. -- 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 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
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=576591
--- Comment #11 from Nikola Pajkovsky 2011-01-26 05:30:13
EST ---
http://npajkovs.fedorapeople.org/iptraf-ng.spec
http://npajkovs.fedorapeople.org/iptraf-ng-1.0.3.55.gae6e.dirty-1.fc15.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #10)
> Thanks, this is starting to look good.
>
> Some warnings from rpmlint:
>
> W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 12)
>
> - convert tabs in Obsoletes: and Provides: to spaces.
>
> W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes iptraf
> W self-obsoletion iptraf obsoletes iptraf = 1.0.3.52.gdaa1-1.fc14
>
> - these seems dangerous,
>
fixed
> W: invalid-url Source0:
> https://fedorahosted.org/releases/i/p/iptraf-ng/iptraf-ng-1.0.3.52.gdaa1.tar.gz
> HTTP Error 404: Not Found
>
> - can't find the tarball on the website,
> would also be nice to remove the gdaa1 postfix.
the naming convention is A.B.C.X.sha1.dirty-%{release}
where,
A.B.C - is version of iptraf-ng
X - is how many commits are iptraf ahead of A.B.C version
sha1 - taken from git description
optional dirty - show only if I have dirty working directory (Right now I
middle of some work)
This is a snapshot taken from git. For table release it will be looking as
iptraf-ng.A.B.C-%{release}
> W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0.2-3 ['1.0.3.52.gdaa1-1.fc14',
> '1.0.3.52.gdaa1-1']
>
> - easy to fix
>
> W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man8/iptraf-ng.8.gz 27: warning: macro
> `Biptraf' not defined
>
>
> Fix these and I will do the formal review.
This won't be fixed till I release a new stable version or I put iptraf-ng into
rawhide.
Thank you for taking time to look at it.
--
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 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
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=576591
--- Comment #12 from Terje Røsten 2011-01-26 06:04:21
EST ---
Version:1.0.3.55.gae6e.dirty
[snip]
Obsoletes: iptraf <= 3.0.1-10
Provides: iptraf = %{version}-%{release}
This will not work, with %{version} < 3.0.1-10 you will obsolete your self.
Your need to provide iptraf > 3.0.1-10.
--
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 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
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=576591
--- Comment #13 from Nikola Pajkovsky 2011-01-26 07:36:07
EST ---
I'm a little puzzled here. How can I obsolete by my self if the package name is
iptraf-ng not iptraf?
or should it be like that?
Version:1.0.3.55.gae6e.dirty
[snip]
Obsoletes: iptraf <= 3.0.1-10
Provides: iptraf-ng = %{version}
--
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 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
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=576591
--- Comment #14 from Terje Røsten 2011-01-26 08:01:52
EST ---
No, don't help.
This line
Provides: iptraf-ng = %{version}
is implicit any way.
This line
Obsoletes: iptraf <= 3.0.1-10
is correct.
This means when iptraf-ng is installed iptraf is removed, I guess you want that
to happen
Now if some installed package A have a dep on iptraf,
rpm/yum will refuse to install iptraf-ng as iptraf is removed with nothing to
satisfy the dep package A has on iptraf. So we solve that by adding
Provides: iptraf = %{version}-%{release}
in iptraf-ng.spec, letting iptraf-ng satisfy the dep pacakge A has on iptraf.
However, we have just obsoleted iptraf <= 3.0.1-10, when
%{version}-%{release} < 3.0.1-10 the package obsoletes itself, not good.
I see two options:
- adjust %{version} to be > 3.0.1
or use this line
Provides: iptraf = 3.0.1-11
--
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 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
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=576591 --- Comment #15 from Nikola Pajkovsky 2011-01-26 08:39:49 EST --- Thank you, second solution doesn't work :-/ I've put this into spec file Obsoletes: iptraf < 3.1 Provides: iptraf = 3.1 -- 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 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
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=576591 --- Comment #16 from Nikola Pajkovsky 2011-01-27 07:50:11 EST --- what do you think? Is it ok with 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 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
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=576591 --- Comment #17 from Terje Røsten 2011-01-27 08:50:35 EST --- Yes, seems good, thanks. Will try to find free time to do the formal review soon. -- 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 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
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=576591 Terje Røsten changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|terje...@phys.ntnu.no Status Whiteboard|NotReady| Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #18 from Terje Røsten 2011-01-28 13:39:42 EST --- Formal review: ok - package meets naming and versioning guidelines ! - source files match upstream: no tarball available ok - specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently ok - dist tag is present ok - build root is correct ! - license field matches the actual license most parts is GPLv2+, however some files has unclear license: bar.c cidr.c getpath.c ipcsum.c mode.c tr.c most *.h files are missing license info. You must contact the author (Gerard Paul Java) about these problems. ok - license is open source-compatible ok - license text included in package ok - latest version is being packaged ok - BuildRequires are proper and compiler flags are appropriate koji is happy, however there are some warning you might want to look at: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=2748127&name=build.log ok - %clean is present ok - package builds in koji http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2748127 ok - package installs properly, even works ok - debuginfo package looks complete ! rpmlint is silent invalid-url Source0: https://fedorahosted.org/releases/i/p/iptraf-ng/iptraf-ng-1.0.3.55.gae6e.dirty.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0.2-3 ['1.0.3.55.gae6e.dirty-1.fc13', '1.0.3.55.gae6e.dirty-1'] ok - final provides and requires are sane ok - owns the directories it creates ok -doesn't own any directories it shouldn't ok -no duplicates in %files ok -file permissions are appropriate ok- documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary ok -%docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package Summary: o include the obsolete/provides in comment #15. o upload a tarball o fix changelog o fix the license issue -- 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 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
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=576591 --- Comment #19 from Terje Røsten 2011-02-28 07:46:00 EST --- ping? -- 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 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
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=576591 --- Comment #20 from Nikola Pajkovsky 2011-02-28 07:53:28 EST --- yes? -- 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 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
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=576591 --- Comment #21 from Terje Røsten 2011-02-28 07:57:03 EST --- I just wonder about any progress with the issues in comment #18. You still want the package included in Fedora? -- 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 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
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=576591 --- Comment #22 from Nikola Pajkovsky 2011-02-28 08:40:55 EST --- Sure I want iptraf-ng in Fedora ;) o include the obsolete/provides in comment #15. - fixed in commit 7abf0de222f3a o upload a tarball o fix changelog - I will fix it when git will be ready and iptraf-ng-1.1.0 ready to deploy. o fix the license issue bar.c - just print "Computing" on status bar. I have a plan to create an universal function for bar operation. So this module will be removed. cidr.c getpath.c - module will be removed and I will provide an option in configure ipcsum.c - if the ping is under GPLv2+ than even this module must be, because in_cksum() was taken from ping. mode.c - omg!!! I will remove it completely and provide only one simple macro tr.c - tricky one. The code was taken from Linux kernel in 2002. "You must contact the author (Gerard Paul Java) about these problems." I'm not sure if this will be doable. Upstream is dead and he didn't response. I will try it again. -- 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 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
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=576591 --- Comment #23 from Terje Røsten 2011-02-28 09:20:57 EST --- Thanks for the feedback, please update the ticket when you have 1.1.0 ready. -- 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 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
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=576591 --- Comment #24 from Terje Røsten 2011-10-17 09:04:41 EDT --- Hi again, what is current status? -- 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 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
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=576591 --- Comment #6 from Chen Lei 2010-06-24 13:19:07 EDT --- If the original iptraf upstream is dead, then you can use Obsoletes/Provides instead of Conflicts See packaging guideline -- 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 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
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=576591
--- Comment #7 from Jason Tibbitts 2010-11-22 23:20:49 EST
---
Doesn't look like anything has happened with this ticket in quite some time.
A few random comments:
The previous comment is correct; it is not appropriate to conflict with iptraf.
Instead, you should have a proper Obsoletes:/Provides: pair. The guideline
that was being referred to is
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Renaming.2Freplacing_existing_packages
The original iptraf spec looks a bit cleaner than this one; for some reason
those terrible macros like "%{__rm}" snuck in. If you for some reason like the
extra typing and decreased readability and really want to use them, you need to
be consistent about it and use them everywhere (which means using
"%{__install}" and not using plain "rm"). Or you could just drop them
entirely. (Honestly I dislike them enough that I simply don't review packages
that use them.)
I see that development is continuing; what's the current version?
--
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 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
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=576591 --- Comment #8 from Nikola Pajkovsky 2010-11-23 04:46:39 EST --- I'm working on huge clean up...when I release a new version, I will put here a new version for an inspection. -- 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 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
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=576591 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Status Whiteboard||NotReady -- 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 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
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=576591 Nikola Pajkovsky changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- 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 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
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=576591
Terje Røsten changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||terje...@phys.ntnu.no
--- Comment #1 from Terje Røsten 2010-03-24 17:52:32
EDT ---
Okay, you has of course informed upstream IPTraf about the fork?
Comments on the spec:
%configure --enable-shared=no --enable-static=yes
Why?
Fedora tend to do the reverse.
rm -rf Documentation/.xvpics
If your are upstream maintainer this could be remove in the tarball?
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/logrotate.d/
cp %{SOURCE1} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/logrotate.d/iptraf
Change to
install -D -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/logrotate.d/iptraf
%attr(755,root,root) %{_prefix}/bin/*
Remove %attr and, use bindir macro and list explicit.
%{_mandir}/*/*
Not so general please.
%dir %attr(644,root,root) %config(noreplace) /etc/logrotate.d/iptraf
Drop %attr, %dir seems wrong.
- Initialization build
I leave that to a native speaker.
--
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 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
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=576591
--- Comment #2 from Nikola Pajkovsky 2010-04-05 11:09:39
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Okay, you has of course informed upstream IPTraf about the fork?
>
> Comments on the spec:
>
> %configure --enable-shared=no --enable-static=yes
>
>
> Why?
> Fedora tend to do the reverse.
I know. I have it this issue in my TODO. Originaly iptraf is built with
"support" library and it has never been shipped. It's used as helper to build
gui in console and it is linked statically. This option say to autotools to not
generate *.so files.
>
> rm -rf Documentation/.xvpics
>
> If your are upstream maintainer this could be remove in the tarball?
>
Yes it is done in git repo and it will be removed with next release.(I've made
note for myself in spec)
> mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/logrotate.d/
> cp %{SOURCE1} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/logrotate.d/iptraf
>
> Change to
> install -D -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/logrotate.d/iptraf
>
Fixed.
> %attr(755,root,root) %{_prefix}/bin/*
>
> Remove %attr and, use bindir macro and list explicit.
>
> %{_mandir}/*/*
>
> Not so general please.
Fixed.
>
> %dir %attr(644,root,root) %config(noreplace) /etc/logrotate.d/iptraf
>
> Drop %attr, %dir seems wrong.
>
Fixed.
> - Initialization build
>
> I leave that to a native speaker.
I don't get it.
New spec and srpm:
spec: http://npajkovs.fedorapeople.org/iptraf-ng.spec
srpm: http://npajkovs.fedorapeople.org/iptraf-ng-1.0.2-2.fc14.src.rpm
--
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 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
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=576591 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? | --- Comment #3 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-04-05 11:43:06 EDT --- (fedora-review flag must not be set by the submitter but must be by the formal reviewer. Once unsetting) -- 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 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
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=576591
--- Comment #4 from Terje Røsten 2010-04-06 14:39:55
EDT ---
Thanks, good progress, some more comments.
Uou seem to be fan of %attr in %files, in general we only use that if
something is special or uncommon, in your case I see no such things.
Set bits correct in %files and let the %files section be simple.
I would prefer that you changed:
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/logrotate.d/
cp %{SOURCE1} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/logrotate.d/iptraf
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/var/lock/iptraf
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/var/log/iptraf
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/var/lib/iptraf
to:
install -D -p -m 0644 %{SOURCE1}
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_sysconfdir}/logrotate.d/iptraf-ng
# reduce to one line, preserve timestamps, correct perms. use proper macro and
change to iptraf-ng (the proper name)
and
install -d -m 0755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_localstatedir}/{lock,log,lib}/iptraf-ng
# same thing here.
Now with %install fixed, these lines in %files:
%attr(755,root,root) %{_prefix}/bin/*
%{_mandir}/*/*
%dir %attr(755,root,root) /var/lock/iptraf
%dir %attr(755,root,root) /var/log/iptraf
%dir %attr(755,root,root) /var/lib/iptraf
%dir %attr(644,root,root) %config(noreplace) /etc/logrotate.d/iptraf
should be
%{_bindir}/iptraf-ng
%{_bindir}/rawtime
%{_bindir}/rvnamed
%{_mandir}/man8/iptraf.8*
%{_mandir}/man8/rvnamed.8*
%{_localstatedir}/lock/iptraf-ng
%{_localstatedir}/log/iptraf-ng
%{_localstatedir}/lib/iptraf-ng
%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/logrotate.d/iptraf-ng
BTW: the rawtime name is a bit on the generic side, a man page about
the tool would not hurt.
You should really decide on iptraf versus iptraf-ng.
Is this iptraf og iptraf-ng?
--
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 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
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=576591
--- Comment #5 from Nikola Pajkovsky 2010-04-08 04:48:31
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Thanks, good progress, some more comments.
>
> Uou seem to be fan of %attr in %files, in general we only use that if
:D I'm definitely not a fan of writing spec files and mainly rewriting spec.
> something is special or uncommon, in your case I see no such things.
> Set bits correct in %files and let the %files section be simple.
>
> I would prefer that you changed:
>
> mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/logrotate.d/
> cp %{SOURCE1} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/logrotate.d/iptraf
>
> mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/var/lock/iptraf
> mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/var/log/iptraf
> mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/var/lib/iptraf
>
> to:
>
> install -D -p -m 0644 %{SOURCE1}
> $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_sysconfdir}/logrotate.d/iptraf-ng
>
Fixed.
> # reduce to one line, preserve timestamps, correct perms. use proper macro and
> change to iptraf-ng (the proper name)
>
> and
>
> install -d -m 0755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_localstatedir}/{lock,log,lib}/iptraf-ng
>
Fixed. I didn't know I can you {brum,brum}
> # same thing here.
>
> Now with %install fixed, these lines in %files:
>
> %attr(755,root,root) %{_prefix}/bin/*
> %{_mandir}/*/*
> %dir %attr(755,root,root) /var/lock/iptraf
> %dir %attr(755,root,root) /var/log/iptraf
> %dir %attr(755,root,root) /var/lib/iptraf
> %dir %attr(644,root,root) %config(noreplace) /etc/logrotate.d/iptraf
>
> should be
>
> %{_bindir}/iptraf-ng
> %{_bindir}/rawtime
> %{_bindir}/rvnamed
> %{_mandir}/man8/iptraf.8*
> %{_mandir}/man8/rvnamed.8*
> %{_localstatedir}/lock/iptraf-ng
> %{_localstatedir}/log/iptraf-ng
> %{_localstatedir}/lib/iptraf-ng
> %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/logrotate.d/iptraf-ng
>
Fixed.
>
> BTW: the rawtime name is a bit on the generic side, a man page about
> the tool would not hurt.
>
> You should really decide on iptraf versus iptraf-ng.
>
> Is this iptraf og iptraf-ng?
This is iptraf-ng and I left the original naming. There is some *wild* header
called dirs.h. It works as config.h in autotools and in my TODO is get rid of
this machinery and use config.h. I'm mostly working on ABRT so I don't have
much time, but I feel in my bones that this weekend this should be done :)
I hope this is a last round :)
spec: http://npajkovs.fedorapeople.org/iptraf-ng.spec
srpm: http://npajkovs.fedorapeople.org/iptraf-ng-1.0.2-3.fc14.src.rpm
--
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
