[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797



--- Comment #61 from Trever Adams  ---
George Notaras, regarding Comment 58, I am beginning to look into this now. If
you are interested in trying it out, let me know.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
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 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797



--- Comment #60 from Trever Adams tre...@middleearth.sapphiresunday.org ---
Until bug 1230373 and bug 1232595 get fixed, I will not be looking at this.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
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 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797



--- Comment #59 from Trever Adams tre...@middleearth.sapphiresunday.org ---
George, I haven't looked into it. I am afraid it got lost in the noise of my
work.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
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 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797

George Notaras g...@g-loaded.eu changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||g...@g-loaded.eu



--- Comment #58 from George Notaras g...@g-loaded.eu ---
(In reply to Trever Adams from comment #14)
 Correct. Header_Type = AR is what causes it. = SPF is fine.
 
 I will look into packaging it. Have you been able to find a sponsor for the
 package?

Hello, what is the progress of python-authres packaging?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
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 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797

Bojan Smojver bo...@rexursive.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-cvs?



--- Comment #56 from Bojan Smojver bo...@rexursive.com ---
Package Change Request
==
Package Name: pypolicyd-spf
New Branches: epel7
Owners: bojan

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
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 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797

Bojan Smojver bo...@rexursive.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-cvs? |



--- Comment #57 from Bojan Smojver bo...@rexursive.com ---
Sorry - I'm an idiot. This branch (epel7) already exists.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
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 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797

Anthony Messina amess...@messinet.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||amess...@messinet.com



--- Comment #50 from Anthony Messina amess...@messinet.com ---
I'm not a reviewer, but I've been building this package for a while
(https://messinet.com/rpms/browser/python-pypolicyd-spf) and what you've done
looks good.

Also, not to derail your progress, but as of version 1.2, this module also
supports Python3.  If python-pyspf could get updated for Python3, the dep on
python-ipaddr could be removed and the whole chain could be done in Python3.

It might be good to add in the Python3 subpackaging build bits to your spec.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=3Go75WHI9Wa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797

Bojan Smojver bo...@rexursive.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC|package-review@lists.fedora |
   |project.org |



--- Comment #51 from Bojan Smojver bo...@rexursive.com ---
(In reply to Anthony Messina from comment #50)

 Also, not to derail your progress, but as of version 1.2, this module also
 supports Python3.

EL6 has python 2, so I picked that to be more compatible.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=EPLy73b5KEa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797



--- Comment #48 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com ---
Branch retirement is handled in pkgdb, not via SCM requests.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=gzQyE7SuPha=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797

Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-cvs? |



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=eL5wv0EXd3a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797



--- Comment #49 from Bojan Smojver bo...@rexursive.com ---
(In reply to Jon Ciesla from comment #48)
 Branch retirement is handled in pkgdb, not via SCM requests.

OK, done now.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=MWH2O8DNKWa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797



--- Comment #41 from Bojan Smojver bo...@rexursive.com ---
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #26)
 Will you support EL5?

I have to revise that - the software requires Python 2.6 or better. RHEL5 ships
with 2.4. So, that will not work.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=gvV2yU5YFoa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797

Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



--- Comment #42 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
So, drop all EL5 stuffs before SCM.

Next time please be careful.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=edLhPpjXxKa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797



--- Comment #43 from Bojan Smojver bo...@rexursive.com ---
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #42)
 So, drop all EL5 stuffs before SCM.
 
 Next time please be careful.

Yeah, well - life is not perfect. Mistakes are made etc. Sorry about that.

Anyway, git branch -d, followed by push?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=N8pVTQz5Yda=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797



--- Comment #44 from Bojan Smojver bo...@rexursive.com ---
Hmm, actually - there is python26 in EPEL... Maybe there is a way to do this.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=kl771XCT1Ia=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797



--- Comment #45 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Bojan Smojver from comment #43)
 (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #42)
  So, drop all EL5 stuffs before SCM.
  
  Next time please be careful.
 
 Yeah, well - life is not perfect. Mistakes are made etc. Sorry about that.
 
 Anyway, git branch -d, followed by push?

Just leave it there or retire the branch.

Not sure if 2.6 can work well on EL5, good luck.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=JuHD5RIOXea=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797



--- Comment #46 from Bojan Smojver bo...@rexursive.com ---
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #45)

 Just leave it there or retire the branch.
 
 Not sure if 2.6 can work well on EL5, good luck.

It would require a lot more stuff to be ported over to python26 in EL5, which
is probably more work than I'd like to do on this here.

So, let's retire the branch. Then I will remove all the artefacts of it from
the spec.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=rRYJAklhSza=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797

Bojan Smojver bo...@rexursive.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?



--- Comment #47 from Bojan Smojver bo...@rexursive.com ---
Package Change Request
==
Package Name: pypolicyd-spf
New Branches: f18 f19 el6
Owners: bojan

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=7RlrOe3kv3a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797



--- Comment #38 from Trever Adams tre...@middleearth.sapphiresunday.org ---
(In reply to Adam Williamson from comment #28)
 Trever: the build systems intentionally have no external network access, so
 you cannot rely on anything like DNS resolution during the build process.
 %check is not required to be present in any package.

Thank you for letting me know. I will try to remember both of these facts.

Thank you to all who have got this in!

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=HJnFI8PHEXa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797



--- Comment #39 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
 The /usr/libexec/postfix path is owned by postfix.
 So, to place the policyd-spf there, we do need to have it, I guess.

No. Nowadays, the packaging guidelines are more lax, and you are permitted to
include the directory in your package, provided that you keep the same
permissions.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#The_directory_is_owned_by_a_package_which_is_not_required_for_your_package_to_function

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=XfNX6Xnd8ua=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797

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.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Fd9wWD9D4ua=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797



--- Comment #40 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.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=VcGS1bRAO1a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797

Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||905304



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=t6Wv3cKHBOa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797

Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||awill...@redhat.com



--- Comment #27 from Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com ---
I've built the latest python-pyspf and python-pydns for EL6, F18 and F19 and
submitted updates:

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-pyspf-2.0.8-1.el6
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-pydns-2.3.6-1.el6

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-pyspf-2.0.8-1.fc18
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-pydns-2.3.6-1.fc18

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-pyspf-2.0.8-1.fc19
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-pydns-2.3.6-1.fc19

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=qB1c3n74mea=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797



--- Comment #28 from Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com ---
Trever: the build systems intentionally have no external network access, so you
cannot rely on anything like DNS resolution during the build process. %check is
not required to be present in any package.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=LQcU6hjWowa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797



--- Comment #29 from Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com ---
I'm a packager, so I can review this formally. Mostly I endorse what Trever has
done so far in his unofficial review. Additional notes:

1. Is the dependency on postfix really necessary? The script can be called on
its own, and it's at least conceivable that something other than postfix could
call it to do something useful. I'm not sure the postfix dep achieves anything
sane.

2. The definition of python_sitelib is unnecessary and unwanted unless you
intend to build for EL-5. If you do intend to build for EL-5, you should at
least conditionalize it. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros
has a snippet you can copy/paste.

3. I think the guidelines are encouraging explicit specification of
python2-devel or python3-devel, rather than python-devel.

4. You include the comment line # Remove CFLAGS=... for noarch packages
(unneeded) in the %build section, but then include the CFLAGS= definition?
This is a noarch package. It seems like you should drop that comment line, and
drop the CFLAGS=$RPM_OPT_FLAGS from the next line.

5. I'm not sure if it's valid to mark an *entire directory* as
%config(noreplace) . I don't think I've seen that before. I think:

%dir %{_sysconfdir}/python-policyd-spf
%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/python-policyd-spf/policyd-spf.conf

would be more conventional. I'm not actually sure what the effects of marking a
directory as noreplace would be, and Google isn't immediately helpful.

Aside from those notes, the package looks good to me. If you can resolve the
above I'll mark it as approved.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=SQpg1wkhgwa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797

Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|awill...@redhat.com



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=FonAxCwtxDa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797



--- Comment #30 from Bojan Smojver bo...@rexursive.com ---
(In reply to Adam Williamson from comment #29)
 I'm a packager, so I can review this formally. Mostly I endorse what Trever
 has done so far in his unofficial review. Additional notes:
 
 1. Is the dependency on postfix really necessary? The script can be called
 on its own, and it's at least conceivable that something other than postfix
 could call it to do something useful. I'm not sure the postfix dep achieves
 anything sane.

The /usr/libexec/postfix path is owned by postfix. So, to place the policyd-spf
there, we do need to have it, I guess.

 2. The definition of python_sitelib is unnecessary and unwanted unless you
 intend to build for EL-5. If you do intend to build for EL-5, you should at
 least conditionalize it.
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros has a snippet you can
 copy/paste.

I am not personally interested in it, but I think someone here asked, so we may
as well do it. I can do that.

 3. I think the guidelines are encouraging explicit specification of
 python2-devel or python3-devel, rather than python-devel.

OK, I guess we'll go with python2-devel then, given that this is more backwards
compatible, right?

 4. You include the comment line # Remove CFLAGS=... for noarch packages
 (unneeded) in the %build section, but then include the CFLAGS= definition?
 This is a noarch package. It seems like you should drop that comment line,
 and drop the CFLAGS=$RPM_OPT_FLAGS from the next line.

He, he... rpmdev-newspec artefact. Will kill.

 5. I'm not sure if it's valid to mark an *entire directory* as
 %config(noreplace) . I don't think I've seen that before. I think:
 
 %dir %{_sysconfdir}/python-policyd-spf
 %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/python-policyd-spf/policyd-spf.conf
 
 would be more conventional. I'm not actually sure what the effects of
 marking a directory as noreplace would be, and Google isn't immediately
 helpful.

Yeah, we can do that.

 Aside from those notes, the package looks good to me. If you can resolve the
 above I'll mark it as approved.

Thank you for reviewing.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=OufdkVBafNa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797



--- Comment #31 from Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com ---
Agreed on the postfix dep, if it's for the directory, that makes sense. And
yeah, I think BuildRequires: python2-devel is the appropriate choice.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=3JwmDiUZMna=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797



--- Comment #32 from Bojan Smojver bo...@rexursive.com ---
ftp://ftp.rexursive.com/pub/pypolicyd-spf/pypolicyd-spf.spec
ftp://ftp.rexursive.com/pub/pypolicyd-spf/pypolicyd-spf-1.2-2.fc19.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=4IMchEjiDma=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797



--- Comment #33 from Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com ---
You forgot:

%dir %{_sysconfdir}/python-policyd-spf

so the package now doesn't own the config directory. Other than that, looks
good!

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=noHkawPU1va=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797



--- Comment #34 from Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com ---
python-ipaddr, which is required by python-pyspf, is not built for EL6. I have
filed a bug requesting a build:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=994741

if one is not forthcoming in a week, I'll do it myself (as per EPEL policies).
Someone poke me if I seem to have forgotten.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=sRKSTjtwCxa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797



--- Comment #35 from Bojan Smojver bo...@rexursive.com ---
(In reply to Adam Williamson from comment #33)
 You forgot:
 
 %dir %{_sysconfdir}/python-policyd-spf
 
 so the package now doesn't own the config directory. Other than that, looks
 good!

OOPS! Sorry. Fixed in -3:

ftp://ftp.rexursive.com/pub/pypolicyd-spf/pypolicyd-spf.spec
ftp://ftp.rexursive.com/pub/pypolicyd-spf/pypolicyd-spf-1.2-3.fc19.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=UQuP6QX2Fza=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797

Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #36 from Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com ---
OK! Approved.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=U4lSRWxw1oa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797

Bojan Smojver bo...@rexursive.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-cvs?



--- Comment #37 from Bojan Smojver bo...@rexursive.com ---
New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: pypolicyd-spf
Short Description: SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)
Owners: bojan
Branches: f18 f19 el6 el5
InitialCC:

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Ktu8wjpPzta=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797



--- Comment #24 from Trever Adams tre...@middleearth.sapphiresunday.org ---
Well, there is a new version out.

As for the check, the following is from man policyd-spf

TESTING THE POLICY DAEMON
   Testing the policy daemon

   To test the policy daemon by hand, execute:

   policyd-spf

   Each query is a bunch of attributes.  Order does not matter, and the
   daemon uses only a few of all the attributes shown below:

   request=smtpd_access_policy
   protocol_state=RCPT
   protocol_name=SMTP
   helo_name=some.domain.tld
   queue_id=8045F2AB23
   instance=12345.6789
   sender=f...@bar.tld
   recipient=b...@foo.tld
   client_address=1.2.3.4
   client_name=another.domain.tld
   [empty line]

   The policy daemon will answer in the same style, with an attribute list
   followed by a empty line:

   action=dunno
   [empty line]

Perhaps if Fedora servers are SPF enabled, modify the above to fake a message
from the Fedora mail servers, but with an IP address that does NOT match the
SPF records. Then do the same with one that does.

I wish you could get someone from the packagers group to review this. This is
very much in use by me.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=tgHma0vqbya=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797



--- Comment #25 from Bojan Smojver bo...@rexursive.com ---
ftp://ftp.rexursive.com/pub/pypolicyd-spf/pypolicyd-spf.spec
ftp://ftp.rexursive.com/pub/pypolicyd-spf/pypolicyd-spf-1.2-1.fc19.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ajnBKdcztqa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797



--- Comment #26 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
Will you support EL5?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=QQpNDN9KX0a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797

Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |

--- Comment #23 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com ---
Packages aren't sponsored, people are.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=43DlCNFw8ta=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797

--- Comment #22 from Trever Adams tre...@middleearth.sapphiresunday.org ---
As as I said, I am not in the PackagingGroup, so my review was completely
unofficial.

Secondly, I cannot change the rules.

As for %check, I haven't seen it before, so I do not know what it should or
should not do. I do note that it isn't required.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=GERL1aZMcXa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797

--- Comment #14 from Trever Adams tre...@middleearth.sapphiresunday.org ---
Correct. Header_Type = AR is what causes it. = SPF is fine.

I will look into packaging it. Have you been able to find a sponsor for the
package?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=YLICH6MVOEa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797

--- Comment #15 from Bojan Smojver bo...@rexursive.com ---
(In reply to comment #14)

 I will look into packaging it. Have you been able to find a sponsor for the
 package?

Don't need a sponsor. Already have several packages that I maintain. Just need
someone to review.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=3apJKJ2khaa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797

--- Comment #16 from Trever Adams tre...@middleearth.sapphiresunday.org ---
I am afraid I cannot do the review as I am not part of the packagers group. I
would be more than happy to do it if I were.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=bNlq3V9chfa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797

--- Comment #17 from Trever Adams tre...@middleearth.sapphiresunday.org ---
Changelog is NOT in the proper format as you have two messages about bumping to
the new version, one is in the wrong position.


Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
===
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires


= MUST items =

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 contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: 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]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
 Apache (v2.0), Unknown or generated. 1 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/trever/review-pypolicyd-
 spf/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
 Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 5 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
 are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm  4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[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]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
 in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
 supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
 provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
 from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: 

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797

--- Comment #18 from Trever Adams tre...@middleearth.sapphiresunday.org ---
I believe that this will work with python 2 or 3, so please change the
BuildRequires to reflect that.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=APaFn6TzGda=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797

--- Comment #19 from Bojan Smojver bo...@rexursive.com ---
(In reply to comment #18)
 I believe that this will work with python 2 or 3, so please change the
 BuildRequires to reflect that.

Even EL5 has python above 2. Do we really need to specify the version?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=d0mhpjczAxa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797

--- Comment #20 from Bojan Smojver bo...@rexursive.com ---
(In reply to comment #19)
 (In reply to comment #18)
  I believe that this will work with python 2 or 3, so please change the
  BuildRequires to reflect that.
 
 Even EL5 has python above 2. Do we really need to specify the version?

What I mean here is, given that this software will work with either, leaving it
as default will just pick up whatever is the current default python (i.e. right
now, version 2). When this becomes the next version (i.e. 3), the package gets
rebuilt and files go into different directories.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=MnvJXMZuhYa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797

--- Comment #21 from Bojan Smojver bo...@rexursive.com ---
(In reply to comment #17)

 [!]: Changelog in prescribed format.

Sorry - bad cut and paste. Fixed in the next version:

ftp://ftp.rexursive.com/pub/pypolicyd-spf/pypolicyd-spf-1.1.2-3.fc18.src.rpm
ftp://ftp.rexursive.com/pub/pypolicyd-spf/pypolicyd-spf.spec

 [!]: %check is present and all tests pass.

Hmm, not sure what do do about this one. Are there any tests that we can run
while building?

 pypolicyd-spf.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US whitelisting
 - white listing, white-listing, whitewashing
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
 
 pyspf is correct, however, white-listing may be the proper spelling sought
 here.

Given this is just a warning, I think we should just keep the cut and paste
from the original software.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=wRXoMAmZ4Ca=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797

--- Comment #8 from Trever Adams tre...@middleearth.sapphiresunday.org ---
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File /usr/libexec/postfix/policyd-spf, line 684, in module
instance_dict, configData, peruser)
  File /usr/libexec/postfix/policyd-spf, line 462, in _spfcheck
header += str(authres.AuthenticationResultsHeader(authserv_id =
configData.get('Authserv_Id'),
NameError: global name 'authres' is not defined

I am getting this when trying to test the module.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Cc84AJpSsga=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797

--- Comment #9 from Trever Adams tre...@middleearth.sapphiresunday.org ---
It appears that the AR header needs the following:
https://pypi.python.org/pypi/authres/0.402

I think this would be useful.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=zBQxHGgVCRa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797

--- Comment #10 from Trever Adams tre...@middleearth.sapphiresunday.org ---
It is NOT required, you just have to use the SPF headers.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=WujIY7oXRia=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797

--- Comment #11 from Trever Adams tre...@middleearth.sapphiresunday.org ---
Other than the AR header problem, which isn't strictly necessary for things to
work, this is working great on my end. I couldn't do the spec file any better
myself! I hope someone will sponsor this.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Qx09pSssswa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797

--- Comment #12 from Bojan Smojver bo...@rexursive.com ---
(In reply to comment #7)
 I've done a quick review:
 
 Look into your special and found some problem:
 
 1. Your Source0 use %{version} already so why not replace the %{name} like
 this:
 
 https://launchpad.net/%{name}/1.1/%{version}/+download/%{name}-%{version}.
 tar.gz

Done in:

ftp://ftp.rexursive.com/pub/pypolicyd-spf/pypolicyd-spf-1.1.2-2.fc18.src.rpm
ftp://ftp.rexursive.com/pub/pypolicyd-spf/pypolicyd-spf.spec

 2. No need this in %install section:
 
 rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

This is the result of rpmdev-newspec --type python. Also, it is mentioned here:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python

I don't know whether it's truly required, but it does not hurt, so I'll leave
it in.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=piiEr469fJa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797

--- Comment #13 from Bojan Smojver bo...@rexursive.com ---
(In reply to comment #8)
 Traceback (most recent call last):
   File /usr/libexec/postfix/policyd-spf, line 684, in module
 instance_dict, configData, peruser)
   File /usr/libexec/postfix/policyd-spf, line 462, in _spfcheck
 header += str(authres.AuthenticationResultsHeader(authserv_id =
 configData.get('Authserv_Id'),
 NameError: global name 'authres' is not defined
 
 I am getting this when trying to test the module.

I don't think this is packaged for Fedora yet. But by all means, feel free to
package it and then we can make this package require authres.

I am guessing you have a non-default config when this happens, right?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=39GAGxnN4Na=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797

--- Comment #5 from Bojan Smojver bo...@rexursive.com ---
New files:

ftp://ftp.rexursive.com/pub/pypolicyd-spf/pypolicyd-spf.spec
ftp://ftp.rexursive.com/pub/pypolicyd-spf/pypolicyd-spf-1.1.2-1.fc18.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=tZ7jVB4V6Ia=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797

--- Comment #6 from Bojan Smojver bo...@rexursive.com ---
(In reply to comment #2)
 Bojan, are you planning to take this to release then? If there is something
 I can do to help, I will.

Yes, that was the idea. To be honest, I have no idea how I missed bug #606003,
because I would never have opened this one if I did.

Anyhow, feel free to do a package review.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=hP5fgK8TZta=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797

Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||cicku...@gmail.com

--- Comment #7 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
I've done a quick review:

Look into your special and found some problem:

1. Your Source0 use %{version} already so why not replace the %{name} like
this:

https://launchpad.net/%{name}/1.1/%{version}/+download/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

2. No need this in %install section:

rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=uNY2qkPKpBa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797

Felix Kaechele fe...@fetzig.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
 CC||z...@zartsoft.ru

--- Comment #1 from Felix Kaechele fe...@fetzig.org ---
*** Bug 606003 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=tnEgajPoMPa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797

Trever Adams tre...@middleearth.sapphiresunday.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||trever@middleearth.sapphire
   ||sunday.org

--- Comment #2 from Trever Adams tre...@middleearth.sapphiresunday.org ---
Bojan, are you planning to take this to release then? If there is something I
can do to help, I will.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=7t6ooLWKBxa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797

--- Comment #3 from Trever Adams tre...@middleearth.sapphiresunday.org ---
Bojan, one question, shouldn't this require postfix or does sendmail use the
same policy protocol?

Also, it may be good to change Source0:   
https://launchpad.net/pypolicyd-spf/1.1/1.1/+download/pypolicyd-spf-1.1.tar.gz
to Source0:   
https://launchpad.net/pypolicyd-spf/1.1/%{version}/+download/pypolicyd-spf-%{version}.tar.gz

If you wanted to go the extra length, change the first 1.1 to a version code
the strips any micro version (1.1.2 is the current, but the 1.1 above is still
valid).

At least, this seems to be the way many packages are done (including
python-pyspf, although it doesn't do the micro bit as it doesn't seem to have
that).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=oYaOqX0HLra=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797

--- Comment #4 from Konstantin Zemlyak z...@zartsoft.ru ---
No, sendmail uses milters, while pypolicyd uses postfix's own policy addons,
documented at http://www.postfix.org/SMTPD_POLICY_README.html.

So, no, requiring sendmail or generic MTA won't work here.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=aQJtYSI6UIa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review