[Bug 612581] Review Request: spacewalk-backend - Common programs needed to be installed on the Spacewalk servers/proxies
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=612581 --- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-12-06 14:57:34 EST --- spacewalk-backend-1.2.74-2.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 612581] Review Request: spacewalk-backend - Common programs needed to be installed on the Spacewalk servers/proxies
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=612581 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||spacewalk-backend-1.2.74-2. ||fc14 Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA -- 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 612581] Review Request: spacewalk-backend - Common programs needed to be installed on the Spacewalk servers/proxies
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=612581 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|spacewalk-backend-1.2.74-2. |spacewalk-backend-1.2.74-2. |fc14|fc13 -- 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 612581] Review Request: spacewalk-backend - Common programs needed to be installed on the Spacewalk servers/proxies
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=612581 --- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-12-06 15:04:44 EST --- spacewalk-backend-1.2.74-2.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 612581] Review Request: spacewalk-backend - Common programs needed to be installed on the Spacewalk servers/proxies
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=612581 Bug 612581 depends on bug 623967, which changed state. Bug 623967 Summary: spacewalk-backend-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary spacewalk-update-signatures https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=623967 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE Status|ON_QA |CLOSED -- 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 612581] Review Request: spacewalk-backend - Common programs needed to be installed on the Spacewalk servers/proxies
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=612581 Bug 612581 depends on bug 623964, which changed state. Bug 623964 Summary: spacewalk-backend-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary update-packages https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=623964 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE Status|ON_QA |CLOSED -- 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 612581] Review Request: spacewalk-backend - Common programs needed to be installed on the Spacewalk servers/proxies
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=612581 Bug 612581 depends on bug 623966, which changed state. Bug 623966 Summary: spacewalk-backend-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rhn-entitlement-report https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=623966 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE Status|ON_QA |CLOSED -- 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 612581] Review Request: spacewalk-backend - Common programs needed to be installed on the Spacewalk servers/proxies
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=612581 Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2010-11-18 08:57:13 -- 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 612581] Review Request: spacewalk-backend - Common programs needed to be installed on the Spacewalk servers/proxies
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=612581 --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-11-18 09:00:53 EST --- spacewalk-backend-1.2.74-2.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/spacewalk-backend-1.2.74-2.fc14 -- 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 612581] Review Request: spacewalk-backend - Common programs needed to be installed on the Spacewalk servers/proxies
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=612581 --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-11-18 09:00:22 EST --- spacewalk-backend-1.2.74-2.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/spacewalk-backend-1.2.74-2.fc13 -- 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 612581] Review Request: spacewalk-backend - Common programs needed to be installed on the Spacewalk servers/proxies
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=612581 Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #22 from Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com 2010-11-16 05:58:58 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: spacewalk-backend Short Description: Common programs needed to be installed on the Spacewalk servers/proxies Owners: msuchy Branches: F-13, F-14, EL-5, EL-6 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 612581] Review Request: spacewalk-backend - Common programs needed to be installed on the Spacewalk servers/proxies
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=612581 --- Comment #23 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2010-11-16 08:06:19 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 612581] Review Request: spacewalk-backend - Common programs needed to be installed on the Spacewalk servers/proxies
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=612581 Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #21 from Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com 2010-11-02 12:06:32 EDT --- As we discussed these issues on IRC, I consider them solved/explained. Package is good to go from my POV. Package 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 612581] Review Request: spacewalk-backend - Common programs needed to be installed on the Spacewalk servers/proxies
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=612581 --- Comment #18 from Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com 2010-11-01 05:11:50 EDT --- sql subpackage has /usr/share/rhn/server/__init__.py file which is a copy of file in /usr/lib/. This file is needed for some sub-packages to work I guess since some are placing files under /usr/share/rhn/server. Otherwise the dir wouldn't be recognized as python module. Am I correct? In that case please instead of having copy of the file, create a symlink from one to the other. Correct. IMO this change will make Makefile more complicated and will make maintenance harder, I do no think that saving 730 bytes will justify harder maintenance. LICENSE files don't have to be included in every subpackage since they depend on each other. I would rather have it there, if it is not problem. Use grep instead of egrep addressed /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/spacewalk/wsgi and then populated /usr/share/rhn/wsgi/. I assume this is a mistake? addressed Updated SPEC: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/spacewalk-backend/spacewalk-backend.spec Updated SRPM: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/spacewalk-backend/spacewalk-backend-1.2.48-1.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 612581] Review Request: spacewalk-backend - Common programs needed to be installed on the Spacewalk servers/proxies
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=612581 --- Comment #19 from Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com 2010-11-01 11:14:22 EDT --- (In reply to comment #16) 3) /etc/httpd/conf.d - this is only one, which I'm willing to change. Although this will make upgrades little bit complicated for us. What do you mean? It's up to the administrator to make sure new version of config file uses correct format and has all needed config options (merging .rpmsave or .rpmnew files as needed depending on use of noreplace). It doesn't change anything for the packager. You just have to decide if you prefer to overwrite custom changes or if you take a risk someone uses out-of-date config files... (In reply to comment #18) sql subpackage has /usr/share/rhn/server/__init__.py file which is a copy of file in /usr/lib/. This file is needed for some sub-packages to work I guess since some are placing files under /usr/share/rhn/server. Otherwise the dir wouldn't be recognized as python module. Am I correct? In that case please instead of having copy of the file, create a symlink from one to the other. Correct. IMO this change will make Makefile more complicated and will make maintenance harder, I do no think that saving 730 bytes will justify harder maintenance. I assume you meant it will make spec file more complicated? One way or the other. FESCO had to give special exception to duplicating LICENSE files when new guidelines came into play. So non-LICENSE files cannot be duplicated in a rpm without FESCO exception. This __init__.py will have to be symlinked or you'll have to ask for exception with FESCO. Sorry I wasn't clear about this in the original review. (it might be possible I understood the guidelines wrong...but someone would have to convince me :-) ) LICENSE files don't have to be included in every subpackage since they depend on each other. I would rather have it there, if it is not problem. I am not entirely sure this is clean since you are duplicating files when duplication is not needed/required by guidelines. But I asked on fedora-devel and seems like it would be better not to duplicate these LICENSE files if it's not required, but it's not against the guidelines either...so up to you. Use grep instead of egrep addressed /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/spacewalk/wsgi and then populated /usr/share/rhn/wsgi/. I assume this is a mistake? addressed Great So could you please addess that one file copy (even the LICENSEs if you feel like it). After that...I believe I'll be able to approve the package with confidence :-) -- 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 612581] Review Request: spacewalk-backend - Common programs needed to be installed on the Spacewalk servers/proxies
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=612581 --- Comment #20 from Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com 2010-11-01 14:52:52 EDT --- regarding license: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines if a subpackage is dependent ... upon a base package ... it is *not necessary* for that subpackage to also include those license texts as %doc. regarding the __init__.py after discussion on IRC we did not find any relevant point in Guidelines, but been able to find several instances of __init__.py with same content, which are not symlinked regarding the conf files there is tons of configuration files and a lot of options are tightly closed to code and it is not in power of regular admin to do the merge of conf and conf.rpmnew. Therefore all configs (but /etc/rhn/rhn.conf) are shipped without (noreplace). This is documented behaviour of Spacewalk. -- 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 612581] Review Request: spacewalk-backend - Common programs needed to be installed on the Spacewalk servers/proxies
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=612581 --- Comment #15 from Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com 2010-10-27 06:11:09 EDT --- Ok, re-posting rpmlint output since a lot of changes happened. rpmlint output is now much shorted so I am posting it complete, with my comments at the end. spacewalk-backend.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/log/rhn 0770L spacewalk-backend.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/rhn/default/rhn.conf spacewalk-backend.noarch: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/rhn spacewalk-backend-app.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rhnpush - Rhodanus, rhonchus, pushpin spacewalk-backend-app.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rhn/satellite-httpd/conf/rhn/spacewalk-backend-app.conf spacewalk-backend-app.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/rhn/default/rhn_server_app.conf spacewalk-backend-applet.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rhn/satellite-httpd/conf/rhn/spacewalk-backend-applet.conf spacewalk-backend-applet.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/rhn/default/rhn_server_applet.conf spacewalk-backend-config-files.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rhn/satellite-httpd/conf/rhn/spacewalk-backend-config-management.conf spacewalk-backend-config-files.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/rhn/default/rhn_server_config-management.conf spacewalk-backend-config-files-tool.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rhn/satellite-httpd/conf/rhn/spacewalk-backend-config-management-tool.conf spacewalk-backend-config-files-tool.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/rhn/default/rhn_server_config-management-tool.conf spacewalk-backend-iss.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rhn/satellite-httpd/conf/rhn/spacewalk-backend-sat.conf spacewalk-backend-iss-export.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rhn/satellite-httpd/conf/rhn/spacewalk-backend-sat-dump-internal.conf spacewalk-backend-libs.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python-hashlib spacewalk-backend-package-push-server.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) rhnpush - Rhodanus, rhonchus, pushpin spacewalk-backend-package-push-server.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rhnpush - Rhodanus, rhonchus, pushpin spacewalk-backend-package-push-server.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rhn/satellite-httpd/conf/rhn/spacewalk-backend-package-push.conf spacewalk-backend-package-push-server.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/rhn/default/rhn_server_upload_package-push.conf spacewalk-backend-package-push-server.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/rhn/default/rhn_server_upload.conf spacewalk-backend-server.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/httpd/conf.d/zz-spacewalk-server-wsgi.conf spacewalk-backend-server.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/httpd/conf.d/zz-spacewalk-server.conf spacewalk-backend-server.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/rhn/default/rhn_server.conf spacewalk-backend-server.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%pre install spacewalk-backend-server.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rm spacewalk-backend-tools.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python-hashlib spacewalk-backend-tools.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency spacewalk-backend-xml-export-libs spacewalk-backend-tools.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rhn/default/rhn_server_iss.conf spacewalk-backend-tools.noarch: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man8/spacewalk-debug.8.gz 1: warning: macro `\' not defined spacewalk-backend-tools.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/rhn/default/rhn_server_satellite.conf spacewalk-backend-xmlrpc.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rhn/satellite-httpd/conf/rhn/spacewalk-backend-xmlrpc.conf spacewalk-backend-xmlrpc.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/rhn/default/rhn_server_xmlrpc.conf spacewalk-backend-xp.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rhn/satellite-httpd/conf/rhn/spacewalk-backend-xp.conf spacewalk-backend-xp.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/rhn/default/rhn_server_xp.conf spacewalk-backend.src:308: W: deprecated-grep [u'egrep'] 19 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 31 warnings. non-standard-dir-perm for /var/log/rhn is OK since apache will have to have write permissions there. non-conffile-in-etc and conffile-without-noreplace-flag: for a lot of files. Please recheck every file in /etc if it's supposed to be a config file. If yes then they should have %config macro. I assume files under /etc/rhn/default are still used as base config file used by spacewalk. This should be addressed upstream but as such is not a packaging problem (and files can be kept non-config of course). I'd say special care for files in /etc/httpd/conf.d explicit-lib-dependency: false positives deprecated-grep: please use standard grep with proper switches log-files-without-logrotate: provided in sub-packages so no problem So two things: * just make sure you mark config files
[Bug 612581] Review Request: spacewalk-backend - Common programs needed to be installed on the Spacewalk servers/proxies
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=612581 --- Comment #17 from Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com 2010-10-27 06:54:35 EDT --- It would be good if the sub-packages also placed files in python_sitelib but even now it's OK. Only leftovers in /usr/share/rhn should be in apache handlers. Which are not python modules and even according the Guidelines web aplication should reside in /usr/share/ -- 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 612581] Review Request: spacewalk-backend - Common programs needed to be installed on the Spacewalk servers/proxies
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=612581 Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||623965, 623967, 623964, ||623966 -- 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 612581] Review Request: spacewalk-backend - Common programs needed to be installed on the Spacewalk servers/proxies
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=612581 Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||awill...@redhat.com Blocks|639391 | --- Comment #13 from Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com 2010-10-08 13:17:56 EDT --- No longer blocks 639391 as the F14 package got reverted to a version which doesn't depend on this. -- 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 612581] Review Request: spacewalk-backend - Common programs needed to be installed on the Spacewalk servers/proxies
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=612581 --- Comment #12 from Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com 2010-10-04 04:40:40 EDT --- I'm still working on this. My ETA is one month. -- 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 612581] Review Request: spacewalk-backend - Common programs needed to be installed on the Spacewalk servers/proxies
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=612581 Michal Schmidt mschm...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mschm...@redhat.com --- Comment #11 from Michal Schmidt mschm...@redhat.com 2010-10-01 10:09:31 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) spacewalk-backend.noarch: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man8/spacewalk-cfg-get.8.gz 1: warning: `\' not defined Not sure how to fix that, but it would be good to actually do it. Hmmm, I really do not understood it either. I would like to fix it, but I do not how. :( If your mangpage is generated from docbook, see bug 639347. -- 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 612581] Review Request: spacewalk-backend - Common programs needed to be installed on the Spacewalk servers/proxies
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=612581 Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||639391 -- 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 612581] Review Request: spacewalk-backend - Common programs needed to be installed on the Spacewalk servers/proxies
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=612581
--- Comment #7 from Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com 2010-08-13 13:17:34 EDT
---
In this comments I list issues which I addressed without any objections. Items
which I would like to comment or discuss will be sent in separate comment so we
can better back reference.
NEEDSWORK: 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.
-libs sub-package has BR on python-devel. Better use python2-devel
Also use proper macros to define python_sitearch on F12/RHEL-5
addressed
ad man pages. filled BZs: 623965, 623967, 623964, 623966
I will address them in near future.
* use %global instead of %define (see
addressed
to call python use %{__python} macro
addressed
I guess this was supposed to be replaced? XXX To be determined if the...
yes. removed this XXX
Requires(pre) is accompanied with Requires:. When you have
addressed
instead of %{_prefix}/share/rhn use %{_datadir}/rhn
not needed with new definition
most of sub-packages install python files into /usr/share. This
is not proper way to deal with python packaging. These files should be moved
into proper %{python_sitelib} sub-directory
addressed
--
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 612581] Review Request: spacewalk-backend - Common programs needed to be installed on the Spacewalk servers/proxies
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=612581 --- Comment #8 from Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com 2010-08-13 13:23:16 EDT --- spacewalk-backend.noarch: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man8/spacewalk-cfg-get.8.gz 1: warning: `\' not defined Not sure how to fix that, but it would be good to actually do it. Hmmm, I really do not understood it either. I would like to fix it, but I do not how. :( -- 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 612581] Review Request: spacewalk-backend - Common programs needed to be installed on the Spacewalk servers/proxies
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=612581 --- Comment #9 from Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com 2010-08-13 13:27:04 EDT --- spacewalk-backend-server.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%pre install spacewalk-backend-server.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rm This is new package, there is no need to do migrate secret key. Please try to get rid of those pre/post install/rm commands. ... If you really have to keep them in, at least put them in ifdefs so that problematic parts won't be run on Fedoras. Yes. This is new package in Fedora, but this is definitely not new package at all. And if I remove this section, everybody who use Fedora and will upgrade to this package will break his installation. -- 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 612581] Review Request: spacewalk-backend - Common programs needed to be installed on the Spacewalk servers/proxies
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=612581 Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||491331(spacewalk-config) --- Comment #10 from Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com 2010-08-13 13:30:45 EDT --- Requires: /etc/rhn doesn't seem to work for me: repoquery --enablerepo=rawhide --whatprovides /etc/rhn returns nothing and none of rpms generated by this SRPM provides this directory either. Perhaps I am completely wrong, so please explain. This directory is owned by two packages from upstream. One of them ins Review queue: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491331 I did not realize this has this dependency. So yes, I understood that BZ 491331 need to be approved before this one, but this review will be probably long run anyway :) -- 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 612581] Review Request: spacewalk-backend - Common programs needed to be installed on the Spacewalk servers/proxies
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=612581 --- Comment #3 from Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com 2010-08-05 03:49:42 EDT --- Err sorry, small typo. The files is there, but correct url is: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/spacewalk-backend/spacewalk-backend-1.1.29-22.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 612581] Review Request: spacewalk-backend - Common programs needed to be installed on the Spacewalk servers/proxies
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=612581
--- Comment #4 from Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com 2010-08-05
09:01:09 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #0)
SPEC:
http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/spacewalk-backend/spacewalk-backend.spec
SRPM:
http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/spacewalk-backend/spacewalk-backend-1.1.29-2.el6.src.rpm
Description:
Generic program files needed by the Spacewalk server machines.
This package includes the common code required by all servers/proxies.
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2305031
Beware of a lot rpmlint warnings. I'm going to explain them:
spacewalk-backend.noarch: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/rhn
it is just directory, all files and logrotate scripts are handled by
subpackages
No problem
spelling-error
all are false negatives
OK
conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rhn/satellite-httpd/conf/rhn/*
we track them as config files, but want them to be replaced during upgrade, no
customization should be placed in these files
non-conffile-in-etc /etc/rhn/default/*
they are not config files, but rather templates for customizing
/etc/rhn/rhn.conf for more details see BZ 523631
Then I believe these files should go into %{_datadir} not
%{_sysconfdir}. FHS seems to agree with me: The /usr/share hierarchy
is for all read-only architecture independent data files. Other
packages are using similar scheme, when example configs are stored in
/usr/share and actual configuration in /etc. But as you said on IRC this has to
be fixed upstream.
explicit-lib-dependency python-hashlib
explicit-lib-dependency spacewalk-backend-xml-export-libs
false negatives cause by lib suffix of required packages
No problem
On to the official 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 612581] Review Request: spacewalk-backend - Common programs needed to be installed on the Spacewalk servers/proxies
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=612581
--- Comment #6 from Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com 2010-08-05
09:07:16 EDT ---
Somehow forgot: most of sub-packages install python files into /usr/share. This
is not proper way to deal with python packaging. These files should be moved
into proper %{python_sitelib} sub-directory
--
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 612581] Review Request: spacewalk-backend - Common programs needed to be installed on the Spacewalk servers/proxies
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=612581
--- Comment #5 from Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com 2010-08-05
09:05:15 EDT ---
NEEDSWORK: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
I am not going to post whole rpmlint output because it's huge with lot
of repeated stuff.
spacewalk-backend.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.1.29-2
['1.1.29-22.fc13', '1.1.29-22']
This can be fixed easily
Several:
spacewalk-backend.noarch: W: manual-page-warning
/usr/share/man/man8/spacewalk-cfg-get.8.gz 1: warning: `\' not defined
Not sure how to fix that, but it would be good to actually do it.
spacewalk-backend-server.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%pre install
spacewalk-backend-server.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rm
This is new package, there is no need to do migrate secret key. Please
try to get rid of those pre/post install/rm commands. Whole %pre
section seems not needed, and also those remove commands on rhnSecret.py
If you really have to keep them in, at least put them in ifdefs so
that problematic parts won't be run on Fedoras.
spacewalk-backend-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary update-packages
spacewalk-backend-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary
spacewalk-repo-sync
spacewalk-backend-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary
rhn-entitlement-report
spacewalk-backend-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary
spacewalk-update-signatures
Contact upstream (should be pretty easy :-) ) and provide man pages for
these binaries.
OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. .
OK (problems explained): The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK: 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.
OK: All independent sub-packages have License of their own (if it exists)
OK: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
NEEDSWORK: 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.
-libs sub-package has BR on python-devel. Better use python2-devel
Also use proper macros to define python_sitearch on F12/RHEL-5
Requires: /etc/rhn doesn't seem to work for me:
repoquery --enablerepo=rawhide --whatprovides /etc/rhn returns nothing
and none of rpms generated by this SRPM provides this directory
either. Perhaps I am completely wrong, so please explain.
I also don't think Requires(pre) does what you think it does. Usually
Requires(pre) is accompanied with Requires:. When you have
Requires(pre): httpd it means that you need to have httpd during
installation phase and its transaction before
spacewalk-backend. However by using (pre), you are saying you don't
need this package to actually work/run. That means httpd package could
be uninstalled after installing spacewalk and no dependency would
prevent this. Solution: add also Requires: httpd, leaving
Requires(pre): httpd as is. You have several R(pre) uses in the spec
file so re-check all of them.
OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
OK: 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.
OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
OK: Each package must consistently use macros.
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
NA: 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).
NA: 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
[Bug 612581] Review Request: spacewalk-backend - Common programs needed to be installed on the Spacewalk servers/proxies
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=612581 Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- 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 612581] Review Request: spacewalk-backend - Common programs needed to be installed on the Spacewalk servers/proxies
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=612581 Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||socho...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|socho...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com 2010-08-04 11:25:05 EDT --- I can review 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 612581] Review Request: spacewalk-backend - Common programs needed to be installed on the Spacewalk servers/proxies
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=612581 --- Comment #2 from Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com 2010-08-04 12:02:48 EDT --- ...but first you'll have to actually upload that 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 612581] Review Request: spacewalk-backend - Common programs needed to be installed on the Spacewalk servers/proxies
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=612581 Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||452450(F-Spacewalk) -- 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 612581] Review Request: spacewalk-backend - Common programs needed to be installed on the Spacewalk servers/proxies
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=612581 Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||spacewalk-backend -- 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
