[Bug 879749] Review Request: xs-activation - OLPC XS Activation Server
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879749 Alex changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(m...@zarb.org) -- 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 879749] Review Request: xs-activation - OLPC XS Activation Server
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879749 --- Comment #10 from Alex --- Spec URL: http://matrix.senecac.on.ca/~aadavis1/packaging/xs-activation.spec SRPM URL: http://matrix.senecac.on.ca/~aadavis1/packaging/xs-activation-0.3.14.gd2a3727-2.fc17.src.rpm Description: Hi, I have rebuild this package to meet Fedora Packaging Guideline.I would appreciate your feedback and review. Fedora Account System Username: aadavis1 -- 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 879749] Review Request: xs-activation - OLPC XS Activation Server
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879749 --- Comment #9 from Alex --- hey I think uploading this in the fedora review will mark it as a duplicate so I post the links above. it the same source but file is uploaded. just waiting for a sponsor -- 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 879749] Review Request: xs-activation - OLPC XS Activation Server
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879749 --- Comment #8 from Alex --- hey I think uploading this in the fedora review will mark it as a duplicate so I post the links above. it the same source but file is uploaded. just waiting for a sponsor -- 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 879749] Review Request: xs-activation - OLPC XS Activation Server
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879749 --- Comment #7 from Alex --- Spec URL: http://matrix.senecac.on.ca/~aadavis1/packaging/xs-activation.spec SRPM URL: http://matrix.senecac.on.ca/~aadavis1/packaging/xs-activation-0.3.14.gd2a3727-2.fc17.src.rpm Description: Hi! I just finished packaging up xs-activation, and I would appreciate a review so that I can get it into fedora extras. correction have been made, I just comment (#) the places where a few things are not needed and update the changelog. Fedora Account System Username:aadavis1 -- 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 879749] Review Request: xs-activation - OLPC XS Activation Server
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879749 --- Comment #6 from Michael Scherer --- For package, if you want to do x86_64, you build on x86_64 host, and the same for i386. Once you have made correction, just give the url to the new version of the spec file and srpm. -- 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 879749] Review Request: xs-activation - OLPC XS Activation Server
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879749
--- Comment #5 from Alex ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> A few notes as part of the review :
>
> 1) Packager tag should not be used
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags
>
>
> 2) I do not think %post should be kept, as people may not read it, and that
> it doesn't help much. I think there is even a policy to say that %post
> should be silent.
>
> 3)
> %install
> echo "hello"
> #rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> pwd
> ls
> make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT PYTHON_SITELIB=%{python_sitelib} install
>
> no need for echo, pwd, ls, as this is likely just for debugging.
>
> 4) having /library is forbidden in Fedora :
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Filesystem_Layout
>
> We cannot create arbitrary top level directory. So you should see with
> upstream to change this.
>
> 5) the changelog entry should be more descriptive
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs
> ( ie, explain what you changed before the previous version and this one
>
> 6) BuildArch: x86_64
>
> Why limit to x86_64 ?
>
>
> 7) THis one is subtle.
> %{_sysconfdir}/sysconfig/olpc-scripts/setup.d/*
>
> If you install xs-activation, and remove it, as the directory
> /etc/sysconfig/olpc-scripts/ is not listed in %files, it would not be
> removed, and so this would be a leftover. We try to avoid that. See
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories for details
>
> 8)
> BuildRequires: python-devel
>
> you need to explin if this is python2 or python3
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires ( otherwise,
> this may break the day we switch to python3, so we try to be proactive and
> prevent the issue before it happens )
>
> 9)
> Requires: bash
> Requires: python
>
> Bash is preinstalled, and I think python will be automatically detected (
> ie, rpm will add the requires by itself )
>
> 10)
> Requires: usbmount
>
> usbmount is not in Fedora, so the package need to be added.
>
> 11)
> %{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from
> distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print get_python_lib()")}
>
> not sure if that's needed anymore, since all supported Fedora should already
> have the macro defined
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros
>
> 12) the description is rather terse, and could IMHO be improved.
>
> 13) I think a better url would be http://wiki.laptop.org/go/XS-activation
>
> Do not hesitate to contact me ( either misc, on irc.freenode.net ), or ask
> question in this bug if there is something unclear.
thanks.
for the x86_64 I use this because I was to do a x86_64 or i386 build on the
package. I thought if noarch build was removed I will get an x86_64.
I made changes to the correction should I resubmit the 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
[Bug 879749] Review Request: xs-activation - OLPC XS Activation Server
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879749
Michael Scherer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||879752
--- Comment #4 from Michael Scherer ---
A few notes as part of the review :
1) Packager tag should not be used
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags
2) I do not think %post should be kept, as people may not read it, and that it
doesn't help much. I think there is even a policy to say that %post should be
silent.
3)
%install
echo "hello"
#rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
pwd
ls
make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT PYTHON_SITELIB=%{python_sitelib} install
no need for echo, pwd, ls, as this is likely just for debugging.
4) having /library is forbidden in Fedora :
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Filesystem_Layout
We cannot create arbitrary top level directory. So you should see with upstream
to change this.
5) the changelog entry should be more descriptive
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs
( ie, explain what you changed before the previous version and this one
6) BuildArch: x86_64
Why limit to x86_64 ?
7) THis one is subtle.
%{_sysconfdir}/sysconfig/olpc-scripts/setup.d/*
If you install xs-activation, and remove it, as the directory
/etc/sysconfig/olpc-scripts/ is not listed in %files, it would not be removed,
and so this would be a leftover. We try to avoid that. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories for details
8)
BuildRequires: python-devel
you need to explin if this is python2 or python3
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires ( otherwise, this
may break the day we switch to python3, so we try to be proactive and prevent
the issue before it happens )
9)
Requires: bash
Requires: python
Bash is preinstalled, and I think python will be automatically detected ( ie,
rpm will add the requires by itself )
10)
Requires: usbmount
usbmount is not in Fedora, so the package need to be added.
11)
%{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from
distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print get_python_lib()")}
not sure if that's needed anymore, since all supported Fedora should already
have the macro defined
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros
12) the description is rather terse, and could IMHO be improved.
13) I think a better url would be http://wiki.laptop.org/go/XS-activation
Do not hesitate to contact me ( either misc, on irc.freenode.net ), or ask
question in this bug if there is something unclear.
--
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 879749] Review Request: xs-activation - OLPC XS Activation Server
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879749 --- Comment #3 from Michael Scherer --- So, I assume you do not have yet a sponsor, I can review and help you, but you will need to find one ( following https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process ) to sponsor if your task is to have them in Fedora. I applied for sponsorship 1 hour ago, but I am not guaranteed to become one, so better try to find one ( as i said to your comrade, I would suggest to get in touch with ctyler ). In the mean time, i will review this package. -- 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 879749] Review Request: xs-activation - OLPC XS Activation Server
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879749 Michael Scherer changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW -- 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 879749] Review Request: xs-activation - OLPC XS Activation Server
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879749 Michael Scherer changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|DUPLICATE |--- Keywords||Reopened --- Comment #2 from Michael Scherer --- Oups, wrong bug, sorry -- 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 879749] Review Request: xs-activation - OLPC XS Activation Server
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879749 Michael Scherer changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2012-11-24 08:43:06 --- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer --- Hi alex, this package was already submitted and refuse, please look at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879568 for the reason ( and a few notes on the previously exposed spec ) *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 879568 *** -- 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 879749] Review Request: xs-activation - OLPC XS Activation Server
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879749 Michael Scherer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@zarb.org Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- 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
