[Bug 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-08-18 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #66 from Matthias Saou  2011-08-18 06:35:52 EDT 
---
* Regarding SpiffGtkWidgets, I've created a quick package :
http://thias.fedorapeople.org/review/python-spiffgtkwidgets/
If anyone wants to maintain it, just pick it up, adapt if wanted, submit for
review and I'll review it. Otherwise, I don't really mind maintaining it, but I
think it makes more sense to have it done by the OpenERP maintainer, or at
least someone close to upstream.
The changes required to openerp-client should then be trivial (untested) :
  * "Requires: python-spiffgtkwidgets"
  * "rm -rf bin/SpiffGtkWidgets/" in %prep
  * Patch to setup.py to remove the two lines related to SpiffGtkWidgets

* Regarding the two other points. It's mostly political... For faces-project my
opinion is that we should try to package in Fedora a version which suits
OpenERP for now, making sure that the next future-merged-cleaned-up version up
on sourceforge is something that upstream OpenERP is willing to switch to in
the near future. As for pyftpdlib... dropping FTP support shouldn't be a
critical issue, but if this is a very small and heavily modified library, then
maybe the exception makes sense. Ideally the latest upstream should be patched
in a backwards-compatible way, yet suitable for OpenERP.

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-08-17 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #65 from Alec Leamas  2011-08-17 18:45:19 
EDT ---
Are the bundled libraries issues stalled? My understanding:
- We need to package SpiffGtkWidgets separately
(https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/88)
- We need to provide the answers to the standard questions for
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/90 and
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/89. This has been open since june, 1. 

We really need to sort this out! What's happening?!

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-08-15 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #64 from Matthias Saou  2011-08-15 11:37:10 
EDT ---
Dependency problems :
 * The openerp-server requires pytz otherwise it won't start.
 * At least one of the client or server packages requires python-matplotlib for
the "Graphs" button to work in the client. Since I'm running both on the same
computer, I'm unsure which, but not having seen anything in the server's log,
I'm assuming it's required by the client (and that would make most sense).

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-08-15 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #63 from Matthias Saou  2011-08-15 09:51:54 
EDT ---
I've now started testing the openerp-server package. First blocker encountered
:

--
%pre
getent group openerp >/dev/null || groupadd -r openerp
getent passwd openerp >/dev/null || \
useradd -r -d /var/spool/openerp -s /sbin/nologin \
-c "OpenERP Server" openerp
--

This results in the following :
useradd: group openerp exists - if you want to add this user to that group, use
-g.

The error message is quite explicit : Either don't manage the group separately,
or pass "-g openerp" to the useradd command.

I would suggest this simple and effective approach (see the "httpd" rpm) :

/usr/sbin/useradd -c "OpenERP Server" \
 -s /sbin/nologin -r -d /var/spool/openerp openerp 2>/dev/null || :

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-08-13 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

Matthias Saou  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||matth...@rpmforge.net

--- Comment #62 from Matthias Saou  2011-08-13 09:09:40 
EDT ---
Here are a few minor nitpicks about the 6.0.2-6 spec files :
 * Big spaces vs. tabs indentation mess, which denotes a general lack of
attention to detail.
 * Included Patch1000 isn't applied. No indication as of why.
 * No %changelog entry for 6.0.2-6.
 * Maybe the first line should read something like "simplified" and not
"crippled".
 * Some non-relevant leftovers which should be taken care of, such as "perhaps
the matplotlib could yield for pytz, in Mdv >=2009.0", "Suggests:
postgresql-server >= 8.2", "I don't understand why this is needed at this
stage" and "Hope that the upstream one will do".
 * Lack of consistency in %description URLs (trailing "/").
 * Lack of consistency in section separation (why 2 empty lines between %prep
and %patch?).
 * My, oh my! I hadn't seen that "urban legend"-ish line for a long time : "[
-n "%{buildroot}" -a "%{buildroot}" != / ] && rm -rf %{buildroot}". Remove the
check, just rm : The buildroot can't ever be "/"... and it's in %clean already
anyway.
 * The few explicit "/" after %{buildroot} aren't needed (again, consistency
issue), as in %{buildroot}/%{_bindir} which should be %{buildroot}%{_bindir}.
 * Lots of consistency problems in file modes. The worst being server-check.sh
installed with mode 744 in %install but being included with mode 755 in %files
: Very confusing.
 * Consistency problems in scriplets. For instance once "|| :" is used, but
then "exit 0" is also used. Once $1 is quoted, once it's not...
 * Consistency problems in %files : openerp-server.* (no number) vs.
openerp_serverrc.5* (number).

Overall, the spec file could be much cleaner, making it much easier to read,
understand and review.

Blocker : The /var/run/ content needs to be handled differently. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Tmpfiles.d to learn how.

Doubt that I have : Do the main configuration directory and the main
configuration file really need to belong and be writeable by the openerp user?
If the configuration can be saved at run time, then yes, but otherwise if it's
only meant to be modified by an administrator it would be best avoided : If
some vulnerability in the daemon process allows to dump content to any file, it
would be trivial to overwrite the configuration, then possibly do something
very nasty upon the next restart.

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-06-17 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #61 from Alec Leamas  2011-06-17 11:52:02 
EDT ---
As for rml2pdf, I think we agree on the overall situation, you are certainly
right (and my phrasing is not really ideal) OTOH, from the distribution
perspective, the simple fact is that openerp contains a modified version of
something which already exists in Fedora, and this needs to be resolved. Let's
hope the exception is granted!

I'm just making a review, and one duty is to check the source vs the source
URL. And they don't match. I'm sure they will, next time :) However, the
requirement for the source url to match the actual source is not negotiable to
my understanding.

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-06-17 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #60 from Panos Christeas  2011-06-17 08:00:38 EDT 
---
> Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries: NOK
>   - contains bundled rml2pdf  (in Fedora: python-trml2pdf)

That's a bit unfair to OpenERP, as I have told you: the original lib is what we
bundle, while "python-trml2pdf" one of Fedora is an old ver+hacks.

> The build sources must match the upstream source...NOK

The tar.gz's used are taken from:
   http://nightly.openerp.com/6.0/
so, they are what I expect to be tagged '6.0.3' 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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-06-17 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #59 from Alec Leamas  2011-06-17 06:55:17 
EDT ---
Client: I wait until a new variant is submitted, presuming that the the main
server remarks are valid also for the client

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-06-17 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #58 from Alec Leamas  2011-06-17 06:51:33 
EDT ---
Server review:


MUST

rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms...NOK
Seems that all warnings could be removed: 
- The spelling errors could be handled by a hyphen 
  (addons -> add-ons, the US folks are just strange). 
- Expand all tabs in specfile to blanks. 
- Remove comment line w macros (29). 
- Fix patches (see below)
- Don't use macros in changelog, expand them "by hand".

The spec file name must match the base package %{name}OK

The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. TBD
Dependencies: Havn't really time for this ATM, but I notice 
that much is improved. Let's presume it's ok

The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license...: NOK
Once again, without checking the details, the License Field 
in the spec does not reflect the breakdown in debian/copyright

See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines 

Separate License file must be in %doc...: NOK
- The only reasonable breakdown, debian/copyright is not present  

The spec file must be written in American English: OK
  To my understanding :)

The spec file for the package MUST be legible: OK

The build sources must match the upstream source...NOK

  You have used patched source, not OK. Use the orignal source
  and apply the patches in the spec file instead. It's easy
  to remove once they are accepted. This will also fix the last
  rpmlint warnings.

The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms...: OK
  Builds OK on f14 and f15.
  f14:  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3136833
  f15: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3136871

All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires...OK
The spec file MUST handle locales properly...: OK

Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries: NOK
  - contains bundled ftpserver (in Fedora: pyftpdlib)
  - contains bundled rml2pdf  (in Fedora: python-trml2pdf)

A package must own all directories that it creates. OK
Package must not list a file more than once in %file ..: OK
Permissions on files must be set properly...: OK
Each package must consistently use macros: OK
The package must contain code, or permissable content: OK
%doc must not affect the runtime of the application...: OK
Header files must be in a -devel package N/a
Packages must not own files or dir's owned by other ones...OK
All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.: OK

SHOULD:

Package built on koji/mock: OK
Testing...TBD
Scriptlets should be sane: OK
  (The test that update-desktop-database exists is not required:)

SUMMARY:
Besides minor editing in spec file the open issues are the bundled
libs, the use of patched source and that the different licenses
are not handled properly.

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-06-16 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #57 from Panos Christeas  2011-06-16 05:51:52 EDT 
---
Note, I have published a new set of specs/SRPMS/lints at:

http://members.hellug.gr/xrg/Redhat/openerp-official/SPECS/openerp-client.spec
http://members.hellug.gr/xrg/Redhat/openerp-official/SPECS/openerp-server.spec

http://members.hellug.gr/xrg/Redhat/openerp-official/SRPMS/openerp-client-6.0.2-6.fc14.src.rpm
http://members.hellug.gr/xrg/Redhat/openerp-official/SRPMS/openerp-server-6.0.2-6.fc14.src.rpm

and 
http://members.hellug.gr/xrg/Redhat/openerp-official/lints/ ...

Getting closer...

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-06-06 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #56 from Panos Christeas  2011-06-06 12:06:02 EDT 
---
Yes, Alec.
I guess we have to package that, too. Not bad, it's a win-win deal.

The only thing is, I had some trouble today in my distro (Mageia) testing the
calendar[1] so far. I want to make sure, first, that upstream SpiffGtkWidgets
don't have any regression over the included ones. 

[1] one method is to put the changes in and run the software for a few cycles
(of working with it) just in case Murphy has kicked in.

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-06-06 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #55 from Alec Leamas  2011-06-06 11:52:17 
EDT ---
Comment #53: SpiffGtkWidgets doesn't seem to be packaged.

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-06-01 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #54 from Panos Christeas  2011-06-01 04:41:33 EDT 
---
Tickets #88, #89 and #90 have been registered in Trac. I hope I'm not torturing
the committee :S

FYI, I'm personally /against/ using FTP at all (even though being in charge of
its development here). But #censored# users still consider FTP as a good method
of transferring files (private data, we are talking about), I know they ask us
for it all the 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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-06-01 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #53 from Panos Christeas  2011-06-01 03:45:20 EDT 
---
btw, can you locate the SpiffGtkWidgets package in pkgdb? In a quick look
[limited to 3min], I couldn't find it. If so, I'd be glad to start packaging
that, too.

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-05-31 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #52 from Alec Leamas  2011-05-31 12:07:37 
EDT ---
I. e., https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/.

BTW, this needs to be added to the trac main page. When coming from nowhere,
this is far from obvious.

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-05-31 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

David Nalley  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag|needinfo?   |

--- Comment #51 from David Nalley  2011-05-31 10:45:44 EDT ---
He'll need to login with his FAS account to create a ticket there.

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-05-31 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

Alec Leamas  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||needinfo?

--- Comment #50 from Alec Leamas  2011-05-31 10:39:23 
EDT ---
Beats me, need more help! According to the links in #48, an exception request
should be entered as a ticket in the trac system. However, I find no info on
how to get permissions to submit such a ticket. 

Are we missing something, or is this a mistake in the new "Getting an
exception"-process? How should Panos proceed to submit ticket(s) at
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ ?

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-05-30 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #49 from Panos Christeas  2011-05-30 18:18:50 EDT 
---
A little more help, please? (see personal email)

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-05-30 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #48 from Alec Leamas  2011-05-30 13:51:08 
EDT ---
A cute deadlock, indeed. Nice job you have done w upstream!

Seems that FPC nowadays are using a ticket system at
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/. Besides that, there is
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Exceptions.

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-05-30 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #47 from Panos Christeas  2011-05-30 08:56:47 EDT 
---
Pong: I was waiting for your help on that: can't find some way through to the
board. I'm not a member of the lists or bugzilla (closed registration?) or know
a valid mail to post to. :(

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-05-30 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #46 from Alec Leamas  2011-05-30 07:20:56 
EDT ---
Ping... Is the exception process under way?

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-05-16 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #45 from Panos Christeas  2011-05-16 04:19:57 EDT 
---
I think we're ready to apply for exceptions. In short:
 - bad copyrights have been restored (upstream)
 - threadinglocal.py is removed, msgfmt.py is taken from python-tools. 
(unbundling)
 - SpiffGtkWidgets have merged our work into their tree. Will apply for 
exception until we test a little more and Fedora ships the new upstream ver.
  https://github.com/knipknap/SpiffGtkWidgets
 - faces-project has been resurrected (I talked with original author and 
collected the forks, into the original project page)
  http://sourceforge.net/projects/faces-project/
  http://faces-project.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=faces-
project/faces-project;a=summary

- pyftpdlib is a copylib+hack case. A not-so-nice one. We either need an 
exception until we find resources to merge their 0.5.x API and push the 
required changes upstream, or let us not have the FTP functionality 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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-04-26 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #44 from Alec Leamas  2011-04-26 09:54:41 
EDT ---
As for server, the source rpm is missing. Reviewing based on old source +
updated spec file.

MUST

- rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms...
  + Should be run on 4 files, not 2; see server review. Also, please separate
output from server and client.
  + Fix changelog version; see server.
  + obsolete-not-provided: Presuming that openerp is incompatible w tinyerp,
this could be ignored.

- The spec file name must match the base package %{name} NOK
  + The name should be openerp-client.spec; see server review.

- The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. TBD
  + Some deps listed in setup.py are missing in spec file. Is this as intended?

- The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license...: OK

- The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license: NOK
  + No overall copyright clause in README or separate copyright file,
acceptable but "odd".
  + License: field is AGPLv3, README.txt says all files are GPL.
  + mydistutils.py is GPLv2+
  + GUI (openerp.glade)  talks about GPLv3
  + msgfmt.py has a Tiny SPRL copyright, but is *very* similar to msgfmt.py as
of python-tools, which has another author reference but no copyright info.
Since the copyright is questionable, I suggest that the file is removed and
build depends on python-tools instead. 
See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines

- Separate License file must be in %doc...: OK

- The spec file must be written in American English: TBD
  + Being a Swede, I really don't know. Looks fine to me, though :)

- The spec file for the package MUST be legible: OK

- The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source...TBD
- The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms...: TBD
- All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires...TBD
   + No source submitted
   + gettext build req missing; see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Handling_Locale_Files

- The spec file MUST handle locales properly...: OK

- Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries: NOK
   + contains bundled SpiffGtkWidgets

- A package must own all directories that it creates. OK
- A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %file lists...: OK
- Permissions on files must be set properly...: OK

- Each package must consistently use macros : NOK
  + Defining macros prefixed w _, like _iconsdir,  is bad practise, reserved
for internal use. 

- The package must contain code, or permissable content: OK
- %doc must not affect the runtime of the application..: OK
- Header files must be in a -devel package
- Packages containing GUI applications must include a .desktop file...: OK
- Packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages...OK
- All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.: OK

SHOULD:

- Package built on koji/mock. TBD
- Testing...
  No source submitted

- Scriptlets should be sane...: NOK
  + Icons are not handled properly, use of _iconsdir, no icon cache mgmt,
possibly odd icon location. See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495412 and
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache
  + Since postun requires desktop-file-utils, the test for
.../update-desktop-database is not required. OTOH, it's wise to add a '|| : '
just in case these tools return an error code.

OTHER REMARKS:
- The for BIN in... loop could be be written in one line using 'sed -i'.
- The copyright info in debian/copyright is outdated, SpiffGtkWidtgets is now
AGPL, other updates.
- The files debian/ and setup.* should be removed; they make no sense in a
Fedora 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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-04-26 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #43 from Alec Leamas  2011-04-26 08:13:26 
EDT ---
Easter holiday is over, here we go! First, a server review:

The submission is not complete: there should be a source RPM which is missing.
The source URL in the spec file seems to be invalid. This review is based on
the previous submitted sources + the updated spec file.  Please submit source
rpm + spec file urls next time.

MUST

- rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms... NOK
 + Only 2 packages are checked, should be 4 (2 srpms + 2 noarch rpms)
 + The "Non standard uid/gid" warnings can be ignored.
 + The warning on URL http://www.openerp.com/ seems to be a temporary server
problem.
 + The error on zero-length file (.../office.dtd): Is this file required?
 + Fedora init scripts does normally not enable services by default. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SysVInitScript#.23_chkconfig:_line
 + The changelog version should be fixed. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Changelogs

- The spec file name must match the base package %{name} NOK
 + The spec file should be named openerp-server.spec; see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name

- The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. TBD
 + The dependency list looks incomplete. Samples like user_ldap indicates that
some module dependencies are missing. Also, there are references to pytz and
matplotlib, but these are not required. Datetutil is used (imported), no
dependency on python-dateutil. Some deps listed in setup.py seems not to be
included. An overall review of the dependencies is needed.

- The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license...: OK

- The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license: NOK
 + No overall copyright clause in README or separate copyright file, acceptable
but "odd".
 + License: field is AGPLv3
 + ./bin/addons/document_ftp/ftpserver is MIT, part of bundled pyftpdlib.
 + ./build/lib/openerp-server/addons/wiki/web/widgets/rss/feedparser.py is MIT.
 + ./bin/addons/resource/faces/* are GPLv2+.
 + ./build/lib/openerp-server/addons/document/dict_tools.py is LGPL 2.0, (C) by
you :)
 + The thunderbird plugin is "OpenERP Public License"
 + 'grep -ir  license . | grep -v Affero | grep -i "version 2"' lists files
which are not AGPLv3, mostly LGPL 2.1+. 
See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines 

- Separate License file must be in %doc...: OK

- The spec file must be written in American English: TBD
  + Being a Swede, I really don't know. Looks fine to me, though :)

- The spec file for the package MUST be legible: OK

- The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source...TBD
   No source submitted.

- The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms...: TBD
   No source submitted.

- All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires...TBD
   No source submitted.

- The spec file MUST handle locales properly...: OK

- Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries: NOK
  + contains bundled ftpserver (in Fedora: pyftpdlib)
  + contains bundled rml2pdf  (in Fedora: python-trml2pdf)

- A package must own all directories that it creates. OK

- A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %file lists...: OK

- Permissions on files must be set properly...: OK

- Each package must consistently use macros : NOK
 + The _iconsdir macro is not used in the server spec file, remove definition.
 + _initrddir is deprecated, replaced by _initddir; see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SysVInitScript

- The package must contain code, or permissable content: OK

- %doc must not affect the runtime of the application...: OK

- Header files must be in a -devel package OK

- Packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages...OK

- All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.: OK

SHOULD:

- Package built on koji/mock. TBD
  No source submitted

- Testing...TBD

- Scriptlets should be sane...: OK

OTHER REMARKS:
- The for BIN in... loop could be written using 'sed -i' in just one line
- Remove setup.cfg together with setup.inf. These files are just not relevant
in a Fedora package.
- The copyright info in debian/copyright is outdated, SpiffGtkWidtgets is now
AGPL, missing licenses.
- As for your question: Fedora init scripts just should be 755, see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SysVInitScript.
- Since you want to retain %clean, you can remove the ifdef's around it. %clean
is not required, but certainly allowed.
- The %description should expand on the summary. It's now really short, a few
sentences about this being part of an ERP application and perhaps an URL would
be nice :)

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: 

[Bug 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-04-21 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

Panos Christeas  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Attachment #494006|application/octet-stream|text/plain
  mime type||

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-04-21 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

Panos Christeas  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Attachment #494007|application/octet-stream|text/plain
  mime type||

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-04-21 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #42 from Panos Christeas  2011-04-21 17:29:07 EDT 
---
Created attachment 494007
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=494007
Server spec, as in 6.0.2-5

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-04-21 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #41 from Panos Christeas  2011-04-21 17:27:19 EDT 
---
Created attachment 494006
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=494006
Client spec, as in 6.0.2-5

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-04-21 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #40 from Panos Christeas  2011-04-21 17:24:47 EDT 
---
Created attachment 494004
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=494004
rpmlint check output

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-04-21 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #39 from Panos Christeas  2011-04-21 17:21:44 EDT 
---
Some update, again:
I've built the rpms against a set of draft tarballs, based on the latest
official commits (taken from bzr->git). Pending the decisions on bundled libs,
we can examine any remaining issues. 

I attach the spec files and rpmlint output. All sources are traced in my git
repository.

One question I really have is why does rpmlint complain about using the
'openerp' group in files.
Also, I don't like the fact that rpmlint forced me to set
/etc/openerp-server.conf as o+rx , whereas I prefer not to let others read info
(and super-admin password) off that 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


[Bug 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-04-20 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #38 from Alec Leamas  2011-04-20 07:50:07 
EDT ---
...which means we need a second opinion, at least. Anyone, out there?

My thoughts:

One spec file w any number of subpackages is fine w Fedora from a formal point
of view.

Since both tryton/Fedora and OpenERP/Mandriva is walking the one
addon/subpackage path, why not stick to this approach (even if it means 150+
packages)?

Did you have any support for finding out subpackage/addons deps in the script
generating the spec 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


[Bug 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-04-20 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #37 from Panos Christeas  2011-04-20 07:03:47 EDT 
---
http://members.hellug.gr/xrg/Mandriva/2010.1/RPMS/noarch/

If you see there, I had been packaging one rpm per addon, for those non-trivial
addons.
The way to do that is to have a /generated/ spec file for the addons (one, big
spec for all of them), but I guess that's way off the practices of Fedora. I
can also tell you that my colleagues at OpenERP want all of the addons packaged
into the server rpm.
.. which means we need to discuss more.

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-04-20 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #36 from Alec Leamas  2011-04-20 06:26:49 
EDT ---
With all issues in comment #31 resolved, we are approaching another other big
issue: how to handle the server addons: their deps and in some cases also
licenses.

To decouple the thunderbird addon license, one obvious option is to package it
in in a sub-package. This seems reasonable from many aspects for me.

However, we also have all other addons and their deps. I know from experience
that using certain addons will break due to missing deps. So, we need to
somehow fix this. One could of course try to add all deps for all addons, but
this would pull in just to much for simple installations(?)

OTOH, creating a sub-package for each addon (150+) seems just not feasible. Or
is it? Seems that tryton (an OpenERP fork) is packaged this way in rawhide, 60+
packages.

Would it be possible to somehow group the addons based on functionality, deps
etc., into a more manageable set of sub-packages?

Basically, I have no idea of the best way to handle 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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-04-20 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #35 from Alec Leamas  2011-04-20 06:17:08 
EDT ---
So lets skip addons/wiki/web/..., my bad.

Relicensing the thunderbird plugin is the way to go, it's hopefully easier than
trying to get the obsolete OEP license approved (if it's at all possible).

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-04-20 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #34 from Panos Christeas  2011-04-20 05:01:56 EDT 
---
My grep reveals these 2 places:
addons/thunderbird/plugin/...
addons/wiki/web/...

For the second, I have not yet asked you to package the web-interface, which
means we can surely leave it out. For the first one, we can discuss.

You see, the point is that both these parts have originally be developed by
partners of OpenERP and have been relicensed to our open-source terms. I will
need to check with them if GPL can be applied.

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-04-20 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #33 from Alec Leamas  2011-04-20 03:57:42 
EDT ---
OEP License: It is used, 'grep -r  "OpenERP Public License" .' reveals some
files which needs to be edited/relicensed(?)

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-04-19 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #32 from Panos Christeas  2011-04-20 02:54:26 EDT 
---
pyftpdlib: agreed, although theoretically our changes could be applied upstream
w/o breaking the others (I tried to code them carefully). However, they are
against previous ver., so we'd need to work merging them.

trml2pdf: an exception should be granted. Saw the same link as you did, cannot
locate where these forks keep repositories (tried some combinations of their
main project in the url). Ideally, we should be able to publish a revised
version of /our/ lib[1] that will cover the satchmo or whatever other project.

the OEP License: I think we're not really using it. We are at AGPLv3 and thus I
could ask to remove that text file from upstream to clear the situation.


[1] one thing I know for sure, is that we have a strict replacement of python's
'eval()' for security reasons. This binds the trml2pdf to our code so far,
non-trivial to break.

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-04-19 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #31 from Alec Leamas  2011-04-19 13:28:29 
EDT ---
As far as I can see, there are four things which are beyond just fixing the
spec file:

- pyftpdlib: Suggestion: apply for an exception, based on the changes you have
made which are required but unusable for others.
- trml2pdf: Suggestion: apply for an exception, based on that you are upstream
for the Fedora package (a strange situation, indeed) and will try to merge w
current Fedora maintainer
- SpiffGTkWidgets: Suggestion: apply for an exception, based on a plan for
unbundling.
- The OpenERP Public License, which has to either be replaced w other
license(s) or approved, see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Unknown_Licenses

One option might be to first focus on the license and trm2pdf; with these
issues solved it should be possible to package a working server (w/o ftp lib).

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-04-19 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #30 from Alec Leamas  2011-04-19 12:53:28 
EDT ---
trml2pdf is at  http://www.satchmoproject.com/snapshots/  Getting the spec
file: yum install yumdownloader; yumdownloader --source python-trml2pdf;
rpm2cpio python-trml2pdf-*.src.rpm | cpio -i.

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-04-19 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #29 from Panos Christeas  2011-04-19 07:49:04 EDT 
---
@Alec:
I remember the pyftpdlib case, I did hack our bundled version myself. In short,
we had to alter several places of that code to make an ftp server of our
virtual documents (pyftpdlib was mostly about serving real files). I think we
could either admit that our case is a hacked fork or drop the FTP suport (the
"document_ftp" module). I have a WiP branch of porting to latest pyftpdlib and
cleanup, but know that I cannot promise an unbundling of that part soon enough.

The case about "trml2pdf" is quite reverse: that library, is actually ours
(Fabien Pinkaers wrote it in the first place, 't' stands for Tiny). So, we now
have to go back to the community that have forked it and try to put everything
back together. I may need help from you, guys, to locate the forks of trml2pdf
and try to blend them in.

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-04-14 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #28 from Alec Leamas  2011-04-14 07:19:22 
EDT ---
A fast scan for licenses reveals some more libs:
ftpserver, possibly replaced by existing pyftpdlib.
rml2pdf, possibly replaced by existing python-trml2pdf.

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-04-12 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #27 from Jason Tibbitts  2011-04-12 14:38:58 EDT 
---
FPC is generally reasonable when it comes to granting exceptions.  If you
provide answers to all the standard questions, did not fork capriciously and
have a reasonable plan for dealing with (and preferably eliminating) the fork
in the relatively near future (or a really good reason why that is not
possible) then things will probably move forward.

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-04-12 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #26 from Alec Leamas  2011-04-12 13:31:34 
EDT ---

> You'll need to get an exception from FPC for this:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Exceptions

Basically, I doubt you will get an exception for this (?)

I suggest to handle it this way:

1) Try to go back to the upstream package. I understand this will take time,
possibly pushing some patches upstream and run tests. However, in the long run
this is the Right Thing for all of us.
2) In the meantime, let's focus on the server spec file. See, yet another
argument to split the files :)

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-04-12 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #25 from David Nalley  2011-04-12 13:25:43 EDT ---
>   3. Unbundling of SpiffGtkWidgets is not immediately feasible. We do have
> enough custom code[2] in there to say[1] that we can't use upstream. OTOH,
> fortunately, I had already formed a Git branch with our work, and published to
> GitHub. This means, I can push for merging[3], although we may not have the
> changes and repackaging of the upstream project in time. That said, I
> definitely see that as a _temporary_ request, pending unbundling of the 
> library
> as soon as possible.

You'll need to get an exception from FPC for this:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Exceptions

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-04-12 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #24 from Alec Leamas  2011-04-12 13:05:17 
EDT ---

>   2. I'd prefer to abandon the old statically allocated user id = 13 for
> tinyerp and instead follow modern guidelines for an 'openerp' user.
That should not be a problem, the review remark was just a question.

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-04-12 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #23 from Alec Leamas  2011-04-12 13:01:41 
EDT ---
(
> I still have 3 points, please advise:
>   1. IMHO it's better to have 1x spec file for both client and server (and any
> meta-packages, if needed).

I don't think the combined server/client approach will pass the formal review.
My own personal opinion is the same. The arguments:
- Using the combined approach, the it's not possible to meet the Naming
Guidelines.
- The client and the server package does not depend on each other in any way
from installation point of view.
- Using sub-packages this way is not as intended and implies more or less two
sub-packages and an empty base package. Current main package is just one file
server/README, which sort of says it all.
- The code becomes cluttered with if-defs in dependencies and pushd/popd in a
lot of code, which makes it less legible.
- The combined approach does not scale to the web client or other stuff.

Bottom line: Separate spec file for each source is so much easier that it
justifies the extra lines to maintain. My opinion is also that it's a
requirement to pass 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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-04-12 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #22 from Panos Christeas  2011-04-12 05:01:40 EDT 
---
A little update of the ongoing progress:
Most of the remarks of this "bug" thread have been honoured in the spec file,
as can be seen in the git repo.
I still have 3 points, please advise:
  1. IMHO it's better to have 1x spec file for both client and server (and any
meta-packages, if needed). Is that such a bad practice? Versioning, according
to company policy _is_ the same for both sources. We don't do individual
releases.
  2. I'd prefer to abandon the old statically allocated user id = 13 for
tinyerp and instead follow modern guidelines for an 'openerp' user.
  3. Unbundling of SpiffGtkWidgets is not immediately feasible. We do have
enough custom code[2] in there to say[1] that we can't use upstream. OTOH,
fortunately, I had already formed a Git branch with our work, and published to
GitHub. This means, I can push for merging[3], although we may not have the
changes and repackaging of the upstream project in time. That said, I
definitely see that as a _temporary_ request, pending unbundling of the library
as soon as possible.

The rpmlint errors (about file permissions etc.) are not all cleared yet,
because I wait our main repo (of code) to publish a new tarball with the fixes.
I'm trying to put as many of the necessary improvements in the code, rather
than the .spec .

Thanks for your attention.

[1] switching to "upstream" will need some time just because of testing, in any
case. 
[2] yes, you can call it "forking on laziness", it's our fault.
[3] this would also involve a series of iterations so that other projects won't
be affected by the changes we may introduce to SpiffGtkWidgets.

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-04-11 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #21 from Panos Christeas  2011-04-11 03:08:04 EDT 
---
ACK.

The remarks are being considered, as can be seen at:
http://git.hellug.gr/?p=xrg/openerp

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-04-09 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

David Nalley  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||da...@gnsa.us

--- Comment #20 from David Nalley  2011-04-09 23:30:21 EDT ---
Just a fair warning - you have at least two (I really quickly ran over the
source, there may be many more that I didn't find) bundled libraries in source.
These will need to be broken out and packaged separately (actually they may
already exist, which will make your job much easier) 

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries

You've also got a VERY complex spec file, especially with it being the first
package you've submitted for review, and I question the need for a lot of that
complexity. 

Also, keep in mind that the purpose of the spec file is to install the
software, not to install and configure, using chkconfig to manipulate other
packages and other things like that are frowned upon. 

Sorry for seeming all negative, I really am excited about openERP dedicating
the resources to do this work, and I'll be happy to help you get it in
Fedora/EPEL.

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-04-08 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #18 from Alec Leamas  2011-04-08 10:50:55 
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #14)

> WDYT? Do we still need to enforce such a rule? Or clean up the %{NoDisplay}
> references?

Thx for explanation. I think the %{NoDisplay} should be cleaned up. Legibility,
don't hide other bugs...

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-04-08 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #19 from Alec Leamas  2011-04-08 10:54:01 
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> Please don't attach reviews, thanks.  Just include them inline so we can
> actually see them.

I will, as soon as it's not a multi-page document, hopefully at next iteration
:)

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-04-08 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #17 from Jason Tibbitts  2011-04-08 10:36:14 EDT 
---
*** Bug 641271 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-04-08 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

Jason Tibbitts  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ve...@inwind.it

--- Comment #16 from Jason Tibbitts  2011-04-08 10:35:56 EDT 
---
*** Bug 641261 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-04-08 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #14 from Panos Christeas  2011-04-08 10:32:12 EDT 
---
About the %{NoDisplay} macro:
Some months/years ago, we did have the case that the shebang was missing from
python scripts. Usually, the first command to appear on a .py file is:
  rpm -q -f $(which import) # ;) guess what it does..

So, I had added 'define %{NoDisplay} DISPLAY= ' to block that case and make
sure we have an error in such a case.

WDYT? Do we still need to enforce such a rule? Or clean up the %{NoDisplay}
references?

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-04-08 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #15 from Jason Tibbitts  2011-04-08 10:34:43 EDT 
---
Please don't attach reviews, thanks.  Just include them inline so we can
actually see them.

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-04-08 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #13 from Alec Leamas  2011-04-08 08:29:44 
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #9)

OK, as I get it, there are some variants

1) User already knows what to do, and installs openerp-server-init.

2) User doesn't know what to do, installs openerp-server. She reads INSTALL,
and there are two options:
   - Iff "a lot of conditions", just install openerp-server-init to complete
installation.
   - Else,  use the following steps to complete install "Manual steps".

One problem is that guidelines recommends against setting start level
(chkconfig) in spec file, and strongly advices against actually starting the
service(s). So some manual steps seems to be required anyway.

Personally I'm happy as long as there is an INSTALL, and the package doesn't
have a verb as name :)

> 
> So, at the end, you will have either a set of "post-install" steps (that will 
> let you chose the db server, certificate etc), or an automated meta-package.
> 
> In the meanwhile, I agree to move as much as possible inside the initscript 
> (I 
> didn't know that extra steps apart from start/stop/status were welcome 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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-04-08 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #12 from Alec Leamas  2011-04-08 07:52:32 
EDT ---
Created attachment 490770
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=490770
openerp-web.spec, another variant for reference

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-04-08 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #11 from Alec Leamas  2011-04-08 07:51:36 
EDT ---
Created attachment 490769
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=490769
openerp-client.spec, another variant for reference

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-04-08 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #10 from Alec Leamas  2011-04-08 07:50:45 
EDT ---
Created attachment 490768
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=490768
openerp-server.spec, another variant for reference.

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-04-08 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #9 from Panos Christeas  2011-04-08 07:25:46 EDT ---
> Basically, what I miss is a INSTALL (INSTALL.fedora?) file. I envision a 
> simple doc, something like

> INSTALL  ON A SINGLE HOST
>...
> Create a openerp database user:
> # /etc/init.d/openerp-server  db-add-user
> Make a basic test
> # /etc/init.d/openerp-server  db-test
> Install certificate. If you already have a server certificate:
> # /etc/init.d/openerp-server certificate-install /path/to/certificate
> If you don't have a certificate, openerp can create a self-signed one 
> for you:
> # /etc/init.d/openerp-server certificate-create
> Start openerp-server:
>  # service openerp-server start
>... (snip)

Certainly interesting.

The purpose of the -serverinit subpackage was this (it is an old concept):
   Suppose we want to provision a system (or image ;) ) with a default, ready 
to work, installation of OpenERP. This cannot involve any manual configuration 
steps by root/postgres/openerp user. It must just start, boot, and end up with 
an openerp client, from which the "admin" user will be able to create his first 
database.
   I appreciate that assumptions are not welcome in RPM packaging. That's why 
I have isolated these steps into the 'serverinit' package. 

So, at the end, you will have either a set of "post-install" steps (that will 
let you chose the db server, certificate etc), or an automated meta-package.

In the meanwhile, I agree to move as much as possible inside the initscript (I 
didn't know that extra steps apart from start/stop/status were welcome 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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-04-08 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #8 from Alec Leamas  2011-04-08 05:38:16 EDT 
---
*** Bug 677639 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-04-08 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #7 from Panos Christeas  2011-04-08 04:29:32 EDT ---
Review acceptable. 
Expect next ver. of SPEC file(s) pretty soon.

Draft Notes (answers):
The wrong permissions should be fixed upstream, inside the tarballs. Trying to
push that change there.

There has been an alternative approach, of per-addon rpms, which would solve
the complicated dependencies problem. See the 'modulize.py' script at my git
repos.

Hard dependency on Postgres shall only occur with the "serverinit" subpackage.
Is there an objection? Will fix init script, however.


Brb..

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-04-08 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #6 from Alec Leamas  2011-04-08 04:06:35 EDT 
---
Created attachment 490726
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=490726
Informal review , first step

Somewhat long review. This is still *very* informal, hopefully it can enter a
more structured (and smaller) state at next iteration.

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-04-08 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #5 from Panos Christeas  2011-04-08 03:31:07 EDT ---
Alec Leamas: that would be ideal for me.

Please note that I /do/ expect corrections to be suggested on my proposal.
Let's make some packaging that will install this beast and let it run out of
the box!

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-04-07 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

Alec Leamas  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||leamas.a...@gmail.com

--- Comment #4 from Alec Leamas  2011-04-07 04:59:03 EDT 
---
OK, so far three of us have open requests for this one: Andrea V has bug
#641271 and bug #641261), Alec (that's me) has bug #677639 and Panos Christeas
has bug #693425. That is, a mess.

As for Andrea's bugs, he has declared that he has no time to work with this.
Also, his work is now outdated w r t current Fedora and OpenERP versions. I
thus suggest that his two bugs are closed.

This would leave my and Panos's request. One way to handle this would be to
close my request and that I instead make an informal review of Panos's one. As
long as all agree, I'm willing to do my part of this to the best of my limited
ability. 

Other ideas?

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-04-05 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts  2011-04-05 15:06:01 EDT 
---
The point is that if there's an existing package review, you should work with
the people who submitted it.  You shouldn't just submit another review ticket
for the same thing.  It doesn't matter that you're the publisher; you shouldn't
just ignore the work that others have already done.

I should close this ticket as a duplicate, but I'll wait to see what the other
submitters would prefer to do.  I will leave it up to you to communicate with
them, however.

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-04-04 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #2 from Panos Christeas  2011-04-04 13:13:51 EDT ---
This time we are the publisher of the software (OpenERP SA., I work there) and
thus it's an implicitly "upstream" packaging.

The spec file originates from the Mandriva one, which has been working in
production since 2008. I've cleaned most of it (it used git-rpm build
methodology, converted to static now) and try to apply the packaging guidelines
to the official 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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-04-04 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

--- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts  2011-04-04 12:09:59 EDT 
---
How does this differ from the several other openerp-related reviews which
already exist?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?short_desc=openerp&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&component=Package+Review&query_format=advanced

-- 
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 693425] Review Request: openerp - OpenERP business application

2011-04-04 Thread bugzilla
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=693425

Panos Christeas  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR)

-- 
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