[Bug 850789] Review Request: babeld - Ad-hoc network routing daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850789 --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- babeld-1.3.4-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 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 850789] Review Request: babeld - Ad-hoc network routing daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850789 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-09-07 07:23:45 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- babeld-1.3.4-2.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 850789] Review Request: babeld - Ad-hoc network routing daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850789 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- babeld-1.3.4-2.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 850789] Review Request: babeld - Ad-hoc network routing daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850789 --- Comment #21 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- I can imagine a few bizaare corner cases, possibly involving virtualization, multiple interfaces and subnets, and dark magic, but in that case simply using quagga's babeld is probably the desirable course of action. I'll Conflict with quagga in f18+. Thanks Adam! -- 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 850789] Review Request: babeld - Ad-hoc network routing daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850789 --- Comment #20 from Adam Tkac at...@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #19) headdesk Adding quagga maintainer. Adam, would you be averse to splitting out quagga's babeld into quagga-babeld so I can Conflict with just that, in case people want to use quagga and babeld but not quagga's babeld? Or should I just conflict with quagga? In my opinion it doesn't make much sence to use two different routing daemons on one machine, does it? I would prefer to just conflict with quagga. -- 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 850789] Review Request: babeld - Ad-hoc network routing daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850789 --- Comment #17 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Given that this is the referece implementation, it seems like having quagga rename theirs would be preferable. WRT duplication, is it really duplication? My understanding was that quagga's was a separate implementation of the protocol. -- 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 850789] Review Request: babeld - Ad-hoc network routing daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850789 --- Comment #18 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org --- That's the same upstream in both case, and while I didn't check the code, I understand this mail as I took my code and put it in quagga : http://lists.quagga.net/pipermail/quagga-dev/2012-February/009122.html But the easiest IMHO would be to either split quagga in sub package and conflict with quagga-babeld, or just conflict with quagga as a whole. renaming everything would likely introduce various breakage. -- 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 850789] Review Request: babeld - Ad-hoc network routing daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850789 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||at...@redhat.com --- Comment #19 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- headdesk Adding quagga maintainer. Adam, would you be averse to splitting out quagga's babeld into quagga-babeld so I can Conflict with just that, in case people want to use quagga and babeld but not quagga's babeld? Or should I just conflict with quagga? -- 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 850789] Review Request: babeld - Ad-hoc network routing daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850789 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- babeld-1.3.4-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 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 850789] Review Request: babeld - Ad-hoc network routing daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850789 --- Comment #14 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org --- Someone at work notified me that quagga already ship babel support, so there is a file conflict I missed. As a side note, maybe babeld is not so useful if there is already support in quagga ( even if I can understand that using babeld standalone would be easier than babeld + quagga ) -- 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 850789] Review Request: babeld - Ad-hoc network routing daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850789 --- Comment #15 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- I think it's inclusion is warranted, for those not wanting to use quagga. Which files conflict? -- 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 850789] Review Request: babeld - Ad-hoc network routing daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850789 --- Comment #16 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org --- File conflict : /lib/systemd/system/babeld.service /usr/sbin/babeld What annoy me is the huge code duplication, in fact. -- 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 850789] Review Request: babeld - Ad-hoc network routing daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850789 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org --- Ok, so I checked, the point noted were fixed, and I tested, it compile and start fine, so approved. -- 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 850789] Review Request: babeld - Ad-hoc network routing daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850789 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Sweet, thanks very much! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: babeld Short Description: Ad-hoc network routing daemon Owners: limb Branches: f16 f17 f18 InitialCC: -- 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 850789] Review Request: babeld - Ad-hoc network routing daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850789 --- Comment #9 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 850789] Review Request: babeld - Ad-hoc network routing daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850789 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|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 850789] Review Request: babeld - Ad-hoc network routing daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850789 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- babeld-1.3.4-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/babeld-1.3.4-2.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 850789] Review Request: babeld - Ad-hoc network routing daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850789 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- babeld-1.3.4-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/babeld-1.3.4-2.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 850789] Review Request: babeld - Ad-hoc network routing daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850789 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- babeld-1.3.4-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/babeld-1.3.4-2.fc18 -- 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 850789] Review Request: babeld - Ad-hoc network routing daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850789 --- Comment #5 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org --- Since babel-state is changed during operation, shouldn't it marked as nomd5, or something like that ? And you didn't update the srpm in the link -- 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 850789] Review Request: babeld - Ad-hoc network routing daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850789 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- SPEC: http://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/babeld/babeld.spec SRPM: http://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/babeld/babeld-1.3.4-2.fc17.src.rpm I ghosted it instead. And updated. :) -- 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 850789] Review Request: babeld - Ad-hoc network routing daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850789 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- I've started with the above from #1. Re #2, that's why I included the sysconfig file, since there isn't a default example shipped by upstream. I'll make one up, as well as the log and state bits. -- 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 850789] Review Request: babeld - Ad-hoc network routing daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850789 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- SPEC: http://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/babeld/babeld.spec SRPM: http://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/babeld/babeld-1.3.4-1.fc17.src.rpm Fixed most of the above. Leaving the systemd macros alone for now since I want this in all current Fedora branches, not just 18+. -- 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 850789] Review Request: babeld - Ad-hoc network routing daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850789
Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m...@zarb.org
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@zarb.org
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org ---
Hi,
I have a few comments :
- this Requires seems uneeded :
Requires(post): systemd-sysv
Afaik, the %post do not seems to use this.
- there is lots of thing that would be removed for a non epel rpm, like
%defattr, %clean, etc, since the package only ship systemd file, I think this
is better to remove old stuff :
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %install and %clean
- I would also recommend the macro for systemd %post/%postun
- using a joker could help for futureproofing ( if the manpage compression is
changed ) :
%{_mandir}/man8/babeld.8.gz
- policy recommend to use %global instead of %define
- it would also be more consistent to alway use %name ( sometime, there is
%name.service, sometimes babeld.service )
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
[x]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: 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 is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
MIT/X11 (BSD like) For detailed output of licensecheck see file:
/home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/850789-babeld/licensecheck.txt
[!]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[!]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot is not needed
[Bug 850789] Review Request: babeld - Ad-hoc network routing daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850789 --- Comment #2 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org --- Additional comment : The software also do not seems to have a configuration file, while the manpage speak of /etc/babeld.conf. Could a default one shipped ? There is also mention of /var/lib/babel-state , and maybe using %ghost could be a idea for this one. ( ie, to not let leftover on removal ) last, the log go to /var/lob/babel.log, so i think that should requires a logrotate file. -- 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
