[Bug 658611] Review Request: nuxwdog
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=658611 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Last Closed||2011-04-27 03:03:48 -- 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 658611] Review Request: nuxwdog
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=658611 --- Comment #8 from Ade Lee 2010-12-05 01:40:39 EST --- Attached new spec file and srpm. As the perl module makes no sense outside of nuxwdog, and there is little chance of it being published on CPAN or as an extension to the perl language, I have chosen to make the license for the perl module match the other components (LGPLv2) The README file has been modified accordingly. New spec and sprm at: https://fedorahosted.org/released/nuxwdog/nuxwdog-1.0.0-8.fc13.src.rpm https://fedorahosted.org/released/nuxwdog/nuxwdog.spec -- 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 658611] Review Request: nuxwdog
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=658611 --- Comment #9 from Ade Lee 2010-12-07 23:38:09 EST --- Attached new spec file and srpm. So - as you pointed out on #irc, there is one part of the perl module (ppport.h) which has the "same as perl" license. So, I have decided to make the remaining parts of the perl module GPL+ so that they will have the same "Same as perl" designation. The spec file has been updated accordingly, and I added a perl license file. New spec and sprm at: https://fedorahosted.org/released/nuxwdog/nuxwdog-1.0.0-9.fc13.src.rpm https://fedorahosted.org/released/nuxwdog/nuxwdog.spec -- 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 658611] Review Request: nuxwdog
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=658611 --- Comment #10 from Paul Howarth 2010-12-08 02:47:56 EST --- "Same as perl" is "GPL+ or Artistic", not just "GPL+". Of course, this is compatible with "GPL+" so there's no need to change anything but it won't be "Same as perl". -- 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 658611] Review Request: nuxwdog
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=658611 --- Comment #11 from Ade Lee 2010-12-10 00:51:16 EST --- I've changed the perl module licensing to say "same as perl". Also, fixed a library reference in the perl build (as pointed out by Parag) Thanks Parag! New spec and rpm at: https://fedorahosted.org/released/nuxwdog/nuxwdog-1.0.0-10.fc13.src.rpm https://fedorahosted.org/released/nuxwdog/nuxwdog.spec -- 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 658611] Review Request: nuxwdog
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=658611 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added CC||matth...@rpmforge.net Component|Package Review |p7zip Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Parag AN(पराग) 2010-12-12 22:35:32 EST --- Looks Good now. APPROVED this 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 658611] Review Request: nuxwdog
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=658611 Kevin Wright 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 658611] Review Request: nuxwdog
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=658611 --- Comment #13 from Kevin Wright 2010-12-13 16:41:57 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: nuxwdog Short Description: nuxwdog watchdog server Owners: kwright Branches: F-13, F-14, EL-5 InitialCC: ausil -- 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 658611] Review Request: nuxwdog
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=658611 --- Comment #14 from Kevin Fenzi 2010-12-13 16:57:51 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). Did you also want a EPEL-6 branch? -- 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 658611] Review Request: nuxwdog
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=658611 --- Comment #15 from Kevin Wright 2010-12-13 18:01:26 EST --- Kevin, thanks for the quick response. We don't need EPEL-6 at this time. -- 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 658611] Review Request: nuxwdog
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=658611 Matthias Saou changed: What|Removed |Added CC|matth...@rpmforge.net | Component|p7zip |Package Review AssignedTo|panem...@gmail.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org --- Comment #16 from Matthias Saou 2011-01-11 05:44:37 EST --- Fixing the component, which probably got changed by mistake. -- 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 658611] Review Request: nuxwdog
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=658611 Ade Lee changed: What|Removed |Added CC||a...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Ade Lee 2010-11-30 15:03:18 EST --- spec file, tarball and srpm are at: https://fedorahosted.org/released/nuxwdog/ I have run rpmlint against spec file, srpm and all generated rpms, and have come across only one error as shown below. I'm not sure how to fix this - and I'm hoping the reviewer can point in the right direction. nuxwdog-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources This debuginfo package appears to contain debug symbols but no source files. This is often a sign of binaries being unexpectedly stripped too early during the build, or being compiled without compiler debug flags (which again often is a sign of distro's default compiler flags ignored which might have security consequences), or other compiler flags which result in rpmbuild's debuginfo extraction not working as expected. Verify that the binaries are not unexpectedly stripped and that the intended compiler flags are used. -- 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 658611] Review Request: nuxwdog
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=658611 Kevin Wright changed: What|Removed |Added CC||panem...@gmail.com Blocks||520534(Dogtag-to-Fedora) --- Comment #2 from Kevin Wright 2010-11-30 16:36:47 EST --- Spec URL: https://fedorahosted.org/released/nuxwdog/nuxwdog.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorahosted.org/released/nuxwdog/nuxwdog-1.0.0-6.fc13.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 658611] Review Request: nuxwdog
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=658611 --- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts 2010-11-30 21:30:12 EST --- debuginfo-without-sources usually indicates that the package doesn't build with the proper compiler flags. The spec sets them twice (once manually and again implicitly with the %configure macro) and it looks like they make it onto the compiler command line so I'm not sure what's up. Unfortunately the package from comment 2 fails to build for me: perl Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor && make -f Makefile.real all Can't locate ExtUtils/MakeMaker.pm in @INC (@INC contains: /usr/local/lib64/perl5 /usr/local/share/perl5 /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl /usr/lib64/perl5 /usr/share/perl5 .) at Makefile.PL line 24. BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at Makefile.PL line 24. Looks like a missing build dependency. -- 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 658611] Review Request: nuxwdog
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=658611 Paul Howarth changed: What|Removed |Added CC||p...@city-fan.org --- Comment #4 from Paul Howarth 2010-12-01 05:08:58 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) > debuginfo-without-sources usually indicates that the package doesn't build > with > the proper compiler flags. The spec sets them twice (once manually and again > implicitly with the %configure macro) and it looks like they make it onto the > compiler command line so I'm not sure what's up. Unfortunately the package > from comment 2 fails to build for me: > > perl Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor && make -f Makefile.real all > Can't locate ExtUtils/MakeMaker.pm in @INC (@INC contains: > /usr/local/lib64/perl5 /usr/local/share/perl5 /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl > /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl /usr/lib64/perl5 /usr/share/perl5 .) at > Makefile.PL line 24. > BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at Makefile.PL line 24. > > Looks like a missing build dependency. It needs perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker) -- 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 658611] Review Request: nuxwdog
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=658611 --- Comment #5 from Ade Lee 2010-12-02 17:10:10 EST --- I have added the additional dependency on perl(ExtUtils::Makemaker) and removed the (redundant) manual setting of the compiler flags. It turns out that the issue where the debuginfo files lacks sources was due to an error in a build script in my svn repo. If you use the srpm to rebuild - the debuginfo rpm builds just fine (with all sources). So - at this point, there are no errors or warnings reported by rpmlint. The new stuff is located at: Spec URL: https://fedorahosted.org/released/nuxwdog/nuxwdog.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorahosted.org/released/nuxwdog/nuxwdog-1.0.0-7.fc13.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 658611] Review Request: nuxwdog
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=658611 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com 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 658611] Review Request: nuxwdog
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=658611 --- Comment #6 from Parag AN(पराग) 2010-12-03 00:42:03 EST --- Created attachment 464496 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=464496 This patch will clean spec as per current packaging guidelines. 1) This patch takes care of using common style of macros https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/RPMMacros 2)subpackages used to install main package so put common docs files in main package only. 3) Don't use Copyright for spec and vendor tag. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Tags -- 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 658611] Review Request: nuxwdog
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=658611 --- Comment #7 from Parag AN(पराग) 2010-12-03 00:43:52 EST --- I see some issues with perl module licensing and then main package license. Please correct the license for perl module in source .pm file. -- 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
