[Bug 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395 Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? fedora-cvs+ |fedora-review+ fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395 --- Comment #19 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395 Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch changed: What|Removed |Added CC||steve.tray...@cern.ch Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? --- Comment #18 from Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch --- Package Change Request == Package Name: ginfo New Branches: epel7 Owners: stevetraylen -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-08-15 13:40:28 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- ginfo-0.2.1-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- 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 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- ginfo-0.2.1-2.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. -- 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 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- ginfo-0.2.1-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- 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 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- ginfo-0.2.1-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- 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 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- ginfo-0.2.1-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. -- 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 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- 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 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- ginfo-0.2.1-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ginfo-0.2.1-2.fc16 -- 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 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- ginfo-0.2.1-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ginfo-0.2.1-2.el6 -- 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 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- ginfo-0.2.1-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ginfo-0.2.1-2.fc17 -- 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 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- ginfo-0.2.1-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ginfo-0.2.1-2.el5 -- 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 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395 Laurence Field laurence.fi...@cern.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Laurence Field laurence.fi...@cern.ch --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ginfo Short Description: A versatile tool for discovering Grid services Owners: lfield Branches: f16 f17 el5 el6 -- 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 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395 Andrew Elwell andrew.elw...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Andrew Elwell andrew.elw...@gmail.com --- Looks like you didn't bump the version number to match the spec: [aelwell@pcitgtelwell ginfo_833395]$ rpm -q ginfo ginfo-0.2.1-2.fc17.noarch [aelwell@pcitgtelwell ginfo_833395]$ ginfo --version ginfo V0.2.0 Built and installed OK on Fed17/x86_64 rpmlint ./ginfo-0.2.1-2.fc16.src.rpm ginfo ginfo.src: W: invalid-url Source0: ginfo-0.2.1.tar.gz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. (warning about invalid Source0 URL is OK as it's a checkout from SVN tag) Other than that, review passes OK. Items listed as not OK in the previous one have been addressed. -- 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 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395 --- Comment #3 from Laurence Field laurence.fi...@cern.ch --- Spec URL: http://lfield.web.cern.ch/lfield/fedora/ginfo.spec SRPM URL: http://lfield.web.cern.ch/lfield/fedora/ginfo-0.2.1-1.fc16.src.rpm This version should address all the packaging comments. Upstream have been informed about the timeout feature request. -- 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 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Elwell andrew.elw...@gmail.com --- New description is even terser than the last! -- 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 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395 --- Comment #5 from Laurence Field laurence.fi...@cern.ch --- Spec URL: http://lfield.web.cern.ch/lfield/fedora/ginfo.spec SRPM URL: http://lfield.web.cern.ch/lfield/fedora/ginfo-0.2.1-2.fc16.src.rpm The length of the description has been increased. -- 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 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Elwell andrew.elw...@gmail.com ---
Rpmlint:
Warnings in rpmlint (below) are due to your description of how to generate the
tarball from source repo.
1) LICENCE - there's no indication in the script itself of the licence -
suggest you include the short apache header in it.
installed RPM:
$ rpm -q ginfo
ginfo-0.1.5-1.fc17.noarch
$ rpmlint ginfo
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings
SRPM:
$ rpmlint ./ginfo-0.1.5-1.fc16.src.rpm ginfo.src:11: W: macro-in-comment
%{name}
ginfo.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
ginfo.src:12: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
ginfo.src:12: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
ginfo.src:12: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
ginfo.src:12: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
ginfo.src: W: invalid-url Source0: ginfo-0.1.5.tar.gz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warning
Review mandatory items are otherwise OK but the functionality of the script
needs some checks - There's no (adjustable) timeout on the LDAP call so if the
bdii server is unavailable then you need to wait for a default (60s) timeout in
the underlying python lib:
$ time ginfo --host bdii.scotgrid.ac.uk
Error: Can't contact the LDAP server. Please check your host.
real1m3.186s
user0m0.056s
sys0m0.013s
Secondly the man page includes references to
ginfo --host bdii.host.invalid
but you'd be better using bdii.example.com (RFC 2606) as:
.invalid is intended for use in online construction of domain
names that are sure to be invalid and which it is obvious at a
glance are invalid.
-- you're trying to give an example of a VALID query not an invalid one!
Other than that, once you've updated the description it should be OK to go.
[OK] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
[OK] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
[OK] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
[OK]1 The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
[No] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
[3]
-- See 1) above -- you include the 'how to apply' part but not the licence.txt
It'd be nice to put the contents of your current LICENSE as a comment in the
start of the script and the actual apache licence txt in LICENSE.
If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its
own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package
must be included in %doc.[4]
[OK] The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
[OK] The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
[OK] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
[OK] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture. [7]
[N/A] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8]
[OK] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
[N/A] Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]
[OK] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
[OK] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this
fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation
of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a
blocker. [12]
[OK} A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create
a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create
that directory. [13]
[OK] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)[14]
[OK] Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. [15]
[OK] Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
[OK] The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
[N/A]
[Bug 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Elwell andrew.elw...@gmail.com --- Hi Laurence, Working on the package review for this - The description is far too terse. It doesn't provide me with enough info to work out *what* I can use this package for -- for example there's now way I'd have worked out my use case of iterating through the information system to get hostnames could have been assisted by this application. Can you submit an expanded description in the spec? -- 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 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395 Andrew Elwell andrew.elw...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|andrew.elw...@gmail.com -- 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 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395 Andrew Elwell andrew.elw...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||andrew.elw...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- 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
