[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564 Bug 923564 depends on bug 947721, which changed state. Bug 947721 Summary: NetworkManager does not talk NetworkManager-ssh via dbus https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=947721 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE -- 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 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|NetworkManager-ssh-0.0.3-0. |NetworkManager-ssh-0.0.3-0. |8.20130419git3d5321b.fc19 |8.20130419git3d5321b.fc18 --- Comment #45 from Fedora Update System --- NetworkManager-ssh-0.0.3-0.8.20130419git3d5321b.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. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=REHE2n1okz&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||NetworkManager-ssh-0.0.3-0. ||8.20130419git3d5321b.fc19 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-06-01 23:00:23 --- Comment #44 from Fedora Update System --- NetworkManager-ssh-0.0.3-0.8.20130419git3d5321b.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- 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=Kz3JnzcQs3&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #43 from Fedora Update System --- NetworkManager-ssh-0.0.3-0.8.20130419git3d5321b.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository. -- 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=YCCTDJSWMU&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564 --- Comment #42 from Fedora Update System --- NetworkManager-ssh-0.0.3-0.8.20130419git3d5321b.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/NetworkManager-ssh-0.0.3-0.8.20130419git3d5321b.fc18 -- 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=paLf8LldQ5&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564 --- Comment #41 from Fedora Update System --- NetworkManager-ssh-0.0.3-0.8.20130419git3d5321b.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/NetworkManager-ssh-0.0.3-0.8.20130419git3d5321b.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=qXYBMbmzQc&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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=SnD7FpEXlS&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564 --- Comment #40 from Pavel Šimerda --- (In reply to comment #39) > It's divided now to sub-packages: > Spec URL: http://nm-ssh.cloudapp.net/nm-sub-packages/NetworkManager-ssh.spec > SRPM URL: > http://nm-ssh.cloudapp.net/nm-sub-packages/NetworkManager-ssh-0.0.3-0.7. > 20130405git3d5321b.fc18.src.rpm The package review is finished with positive result and you have been granted git access. It's time to start using the Fedora git repository for your package and the various Fedora infrastructure tools like koji and bodhi. You don't have to be afraid of that, when you build a package using koji, it's up to you whether you push it as an update through bodhi or whether you keep it just for testing. > Eduardo/Pavel, I'll be more than happy to get feedback on that. The mock > build looks good though (rpmlint has no errors on spec or build packages). > > And at the same time, since I've been through the process of making > NetworkManager-ssh.spec standard, I'll be happy to do the same for the rest > of the NetworkManager VPN plugins. This is as easy as checking out their git repositories (e.g. using fedpkg clone ), modifying the spec file, producing a patch (e.g. using git diff) and start a bug report with that patch. Cheers, Pavel -- 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=SVgHKnh52e&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564 --- Comment #39 from Dan Fruehauf --- It's divided now to sub-packages: Spec URL: http://nm-ssh.cloudapp.net/nm-sub-packages/NetworkManager-ssh.spec SRPM URL: http://nm-ssh.cloudapp.net/nm-sub-packages/NetworkManager-ssh-0.0.3-0.7.20130405git3d5321b.fc18.src.rpm Eduardo/Pavel, I'll be more than happy to get feedback on that. The mock build looks good though (rpmlint has no errors on spec or build packages). And at the same time, since I've been through the process of making NetworkManager-ssh.spec standard, I'll be happy to do the same for the rest of the NetworkManager VPN plugins. -- 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=7g28YjJTDr&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564 --- Comment #38 from Pavel Šimerda --- (In reply to comment #37) > Pavel, sounds good. much like in debian. I'll work shortly on separating it > into a NetworkManager-ssh and NetworkManager-ssh-gnome plugin. Shouldn't be > too difficult. Thanks. Subpackaging is actually very easy. Consult the packaging guidelines and/or ask me or Eduardo. -- 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=s1ATxlVYDA&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564 --- Comment #37 from Dan Fruehauf --- Pavel, sounds good. much like in debian. I'll work shortly on separating it into a NetworkManager-ssh and NetworkManager-ssh-gnome plugin. Shouldn't be too difficult. -- 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=nSpE9bLPwi&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564 --- Comment #36 from Pavel Šimerda --- Please see: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863836#c16 -- 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=oXuDIfKLZh&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564 --- Comment #35 from Dan Fruehauf --- FYI Just build for Rawhide. Will build for f18 and f19 when NetworkManager-0.9.8.1 goes into stable. -- 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=roOjwXVxDM&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564 --- Comment #34 from Eduardo Echeverria --- (In reply to comment #33) > So the patch made it into NetworkManager 0.9.8.1, which is in > updates-testing. > > Eduardo, should I change the spec to depend on NetworkManager 0.9.8.1 and > send a build request? No, build the package for now in rawhide if you prefer. when nm pass to stable, then build in the other branches -- 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=deVI4yzYPE&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564 --- Comment #33 from Dan Fruehauf --- So the patch made it into NetworkManager 0.9.8.1, which is in updates-testing. Eduardo, should I change the spec to depend on NetworkManager 0.9.8.1 and send a build request? Pavel, even after updating to NetworkManager-0.9.8.1, it'll still require a restart of NetworkManager for things to 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=3WTcKFK5PP&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564 Dan Fruehauf changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||947721 -- 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=Dqir148OUg&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564 --- Comment #32 from Pavel Šimerda --- (In reply to comment #31) > I hope this time I've made more sense... :) It makes sense, theoretically. But then please let me know when I can actually successfully try to use NetworkManager-ssh and whether there's something special I have to do. -- 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=pYbm8UNHQX&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564 --- Comment #31 from Dan Fruehauf --- (In reply to comment #30) > (In reply to comment #29) > > Pavel, > > > > You've followed up in the NetworkManager mailing list, however I want to > > make sure the issue is clear. > > > > Even if we patch NetworkManager - yes or no, we'll still have to suggest the > > user to restart NetworkManager. If the user will have to restart > > NetworkManager, do we really want the patch? > > Sure we do. It fixes the problem at least with the restart. > Not exactly. > > In future versions if the patch is not applied and the NetworkManager-ssh > > package is downloaded after NetworkManager and the patch was not applied, a > > restart will be needed. If the patch would be applied - it wouldn't require > > a restart. > > Please elaborate. This way you're only adding more confusion. Please be more > precise. It looks like your contradicting yourself blatantly which suggests > there's some misunderstanding. > > > If someone does not perform a distribution upgrade (f18 for instance) and > > updates NetworkManager with the patch and downloads NetworkManager-ssh - > > things will not work until a restart of NetworkManager. > > > > In my opinion the patch should be applied regardless, since all the known > > VPN plugins are recognized in NetworkManager dbus config file, however much > > of a difference it doesn't make since the current limitations will require a > > restart in some cases. It wouldn't be "clean". > > From the current information I have, we're choosing between: > > a) It will work after restart > b) It will not work at all > > Corrent me if I'm wrong. And also correct the information you provided. As > in this situation I'm of course for #a as it will allow me to use the > package, while #b won't. > > > Please advise what you think is the best solution. > > I'm afraid that if you are even thinking about not applying the patch, then > there must be some confusion that you should clarify first. I can't imagine > why would you want to deliver a package that doesn't work. In terms of dbus policy, every NetworkManager VPN plugin ships: /etc/dbus-1/system.d/nm-X-service.conf In our case: /etc/dbus-1/system.d/nm-ssh-service.conf These files include the line: --- --- However these lines are also in /etc/dbus-1/system.d/org.freedesktop.NetworkManager.conf - which ships with NetworkManager: --- --- So every plugin theoretically takes care of itself. However if you install a new plugin, its policy (in /etc/dbus-1/system.d/nm-X-service.conf) will not be used until NetworkManager is restarted, this is the dbus bug we were referring to. Having this line in the NetworkManager dbus config (/etc/dbus-1/system.d/org.freedesktop.NetworkManager.conf) as a dup for that just means that if NetworkManager is running and you add a new VPN plugin - it'll work without a restart (because it loaded the config allowing all VPN plugins). I hope this time I've made more sense... :) -- 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=jOqLIk5Jpt&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564 --- Comment #30 from Pavel Šimerda --- (In reply to comment #29) > Pavel, > > You've followed up in the NetworkManager mailing list, however I want to > make sure the issue is clear. > > Even if we patch NetworkManager - yes or no, we'll still have to suggest the > user to restart NetworkManager. If the user will have to restart > NetworkManager, do we really want the patch? Sure we do. It fixes the problem at least with the restart. > In future versions if the patch is not applied and the NetworkManager-ssh > package is downloaded after NetworkManager and the patch was not applied, a > restart will be needed. If the patch would be applied - it wouldn't require > a restart. Please elaborate. This way you're only adding more confusion. Please be more precise. It looks like your contradicting yourself blatantly which suggests there's some misunderstanding. > If someone does not perform a distribution upgrade (f18 for instance) and > updates NetworkManager with the patch and downloads NetworkManager-ssh - > things will not work until a restart of NetworkManager. > > In my opinion the patch should be applied regardless, since all the known > VPN plugins are recognized in NetworkManager dbus config file, however much > of a difference it doesn't make since the current limitations will require a > restart in some cases. It wouldn't be "clean". From the current information I have, we're choosing between: a) It will work after restart b) It will not work at all Corrent me if I'm wrong. And also correct the information you provided. As in this situation I'm of course for #a as it will allow me to use the package, while #b won't. > Please advise what you think is the best solution. I'm afraid that if you are even thinking about not applying the patch, then there must be some confusion that you should clarify first. I can't imagine why would you want to deliver a package that doesn't 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=zCtIysfJ0y&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564 --- Comment #29 from Dan Fruehauf --- Pavel, You've followed up in the NetworkManager mailing list, however I want to make sure the issue is clear. Even if we patch NetworkManager - yes or no, we'll still have to suggest the user to restart NetworkManager. If the user will have to restart NetworkManager, do we really want the patch? In future versions if the patch is not applied and the NetworkManager-ssh package is downloaded after NetworkManager and the patch was not applied, a restart will be needed. If the patch would be applied - it wouldn't require a restart. If someone does not perform a distribution upgrade (f18 for instance) and updates NetworkManager with the patch and downloads NetworkManager-ssh - things will not work until a restart of NetworkManager. In my opinion the patch should be applied regardless, since all the known VPN plugins are recognized in NetworkManager dbus config file, however much of a difference it doesn't make since the current limitations will require a restart in some cases. It wouldn't be "clean". Please advise what you think is the best solution. -- 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=bqQLEeAS5i&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564 --- Comment #28 from Kevin Fenzi --- 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=WUg2UxJKHE&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | 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=ooLFiT77oU&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564 --- Comment #27 from Pavel Šimerda --- (In reply to comment #24) > Guys, thank you very much!! Happy to be a part of Fedora!! Thanks Eduardo for doing the review. > About the issues at stake: > - Open a bug for NetworkManager-ssh and possibly backporting dbus > NetworkManager patch to fc18 and fc19 > - I'm very new with the Fedora packaging system, I think I'll contact > Eduardo on IRC and further understand what I should do (how to set you as > co-maintainers for instance) For other packages, I'm just requesting commit access and the owner grants it to me. But I don't know the precise meaning of co-maintainership either. > - Pavel, I'll probably continue managing the spec with the same git, This is not how Fedora works. But you will learn that anyway. > however I'm much smarter about it now, so it shouldn't impose any problems. > > Other than that, I'm excited and hopefully it'll boost me to also maintain > more packages in Fedora once I get NetworkManager-ssh to a desired state. Apart from submitting new packages, you can also read through my packages and request commit access to those you would like to help with and post me a mail about what help I can expect :). https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/users/packages/pavlix > BR (In reply to comment #26) > Just wrote the mailing list, apparently the patch I've submitted it not > needed. Your package didn't work on my Fedora 18 because of dbus policy issues. So either you fixed the issue in NetworkManager-ssh, or you're getting a bug report on NetworkManager-ssh once you push the build. I see you are going to support NetworkManager-ssh on Fedora 18 (and thanks for that), so we should resolve the issue in a way or other. > I've just verified it. So I guess we can continue without opening another > bug. However I already posted in the mailing list about that and we might > just remove the whole section about allowing per-vpn-type. But that's > another but. > > Altogether I think we can proceed with the build? Sure. Make builds. Test them. Fix the policy issues. But you don't need to push updates to branches, yet, and can wait until the issues are resolved, AFAIK. -- 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=sx6ba4Scab&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564 --- Comment #26 from Dan Fruehauf --- Pavel, Just wrote the mailing list, apparently the patch I've submitted it not needed. I've just verified it. So I guess we can continue without opening another bug. However I already posted in the mailing list about that and we might just remove the whole section about allowing per-vpn-type. But that's another but. Altogether I think we can proceed with the build? -- 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=pTh9t0U0A0&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564 --- Comment #25 from Dan Fruehauf --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: NetworkManager-ssh Short Description: NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH Owners: danfruehauf echevemaster pavlix Branches: f18 f19 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=cHCk6bMAOu&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564 Dan Fruehauf 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=xbDAhQUHWI&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564 --- Comment #24 from Dan Fruehauf --- Guys, thank you very much!! Happy to be a part of Fedora!! About the issues at stake: - Open a bug for NetworkManager-ssh and possibly backporting dbus NetworkManager patch to fc18 and fc19 - I'm very new with the Fedora packaging system, I think I'll contact Eduardo on IRC and further understand what I should do (how to set you as co-maintainers for instance) - Pavel, I'll probably continue managing the spec with the same git, however I'm much smarter about it now, so it shouldn't impose any problems. Other than that, I'm excited and hopefully it'll boost me to also maintain more packages in Fedora once I get NetworkManager-ssh to a desired state. BR -- 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=8ceooQ4GxT&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564
Eduardo Echeverria changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #23 from Eduardo Echeverria ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
No, not in the LDPATH
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[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]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: 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:
"GPL (v2 or later)". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/makerpm/nm31/923564-NetworkManager-
ssh/licensecheck.txt
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[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.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 4 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.
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[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: No rpmlint messages.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: 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.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English langua
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564 Eduardo Echeverria changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | --- Comment #22 from Eduardo Echeverria --- Lifting FE-NEEDSPONSOR, I'll do the review today, but later, because Bugzilla intermittently for maintenance Dan, you are already sponsored, congratulations and welcome to package maintainers group -- 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=TsUqJ25P5d&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564 Eduardo Echeverria changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-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=Dvll1yuXrB&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564 Eduardo Echeverria changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-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=f8PAPRiSno&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564 Eduardo Echeverria changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|psime...@redhat.com |echevemas...@gmail.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=3mrA2W5IMB&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564 --- Comment #21 from Eduardo Echeverria --- (In reply to comment #20) > Eduardo, > > I thought I already assigned myself earlier and was going to do the review. > But if you had the same idea and want to take it yourself, just let me know > and I'll transfer the bug to you. > > Cheers, > > Pavel Yes. Pavel I had the same idea ;). Please tranfer the bug to me, I'll sponsor to Dan. Dan, I think it would be great idea that once approved the package, add to Pavel and me as co-maintainers. I'm sure we can help you throughout the process -- 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=a2GfYGJHwe&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564 --- Comment #20 from Pavel Šimerda --- Eduardo, I thought I already assigned myself earlier and was going to do the review. But if you had the same idea and want to take it yourself, just let me know and I'll transfer the bug to you. Cheers, Pavel -- 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=CRtTVQCLjo&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564 Pavel Šimerda changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-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=o0jpkrDm8l&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564 Pavel Šimerda changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|psime...@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=zK90hOlnJE&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564
--- Comment #19 from Pavel Šimerda ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> If so, I'll try to target FC18, as I think the NetworkManager patch is tiny
> and could be implemented easily (it's not even a code change).
That's a good idea. Then we need to apply the fix for f18, f19 and rawhide.
> So say I want to open a bug report, what should be the topic? Any standard
> for the topic?
> 'NetworkManager-ssh dbus support in NetworkManager' with a target of FC18?
Exactly. It should be implied but it may be better to specify that you are
targetting to f18, f19 and rawhide.
> Then should I attach the suggested patch and hope that the maintainer will
> include it in the next build of NetworkManager on FC18?
Link to the commit is good enough:
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/NetworkManager/NetworkManager/commit/?id=edd1ebe8a0f6703f7863684566011e34a9715186
> Should I make this bug depend on the bug I'm going to open?
Yes.
> Many thanks Pavel. :)
I'm happy there's someone willing to extend the networking ecosystem :).
(In reply to comment #17)
> Hi Dan.
>
> I think the best way we can proceed is to first bring this package to the
> devel branch,
I disagree.
> aka rawhide or f19, and then open the bug against f18, You can
> always ask a package change request, requesting a new branch
This increases the bureaucratic burden but doesn't solve anything. It's as easy
to ask for patching rawhide NetworkManager as to ask for patching all branches.
> > A bit of a confusion about the changelog in the spec.
> > Say I have revision X which is last for the changelog, however revision Y,
> > which is newer is the version I want to build, if I build revision Y and the
> > last entry is revision X, rpmlint complains about it.
> > Hence I assume that in the changelog, the last entry should be of the commit
> > I currently build (which doesn't make any sense, because it's not the last
> > commit the spec was changed), correct me if I'm wrong.
> > So I've included an entry of:
> > '* Thu Mar 28 2013 Dan Fruehauf -
> > 0.0.3-0.4.%{checkout}'
> > Any other entry will result in a rpmlint yielding an error. Please clarify
> > that issue for me.
When you bump your version/release, you should also add a changelog record. The
'rpmdev-bumpspec' from @fedora-packager will do that for you. You don't even
need to stuff everything in one commit. It is your choice which commit you use
for building. It will work in the same way with fedora git repositories.
Also please don't use your projects git branch for tracking of the fedora spec
file.
> The fedora package maintainers, must try and as far as possible to package
> the latest version of the package which owns.
This is not necessarily true. Often it's the latest released version. Often
it's one of known-working git snapshots.
> Btw, althought 0.0.3-0.4.%{checkout} is an elegant solution, is not allowed
> because in the changelog, macros are not acceptable
+1
You must have literal versions in your changelog or otherwise it wouldn't work
as a changelog.
> > Speaking of which, if you've found so many errors here, are you aware of the
> > status of NetworkManager and all of the rest of its plugins?
>
> Let me know what is your decision on the branch you're going to take
> initially, outside the small changes that I suggest in this comment, I see
> the package acceptable for a formal review
+1
(In reply to comment #18)
> It's a bit like a chicken and egg.
> I'll just prepare a correct spec with the current date and the last revision.
Don't use your projects' source control to track the Fedora specfile and you'll
be fine.
> I might actually do it and provide patches since I know what has to be done
> more or less. I'll talk to the guys on #nm.
You can submit the patches upstream to NetworkManager bugzilla or
NetworkManager mailing list. If you find problems with the Fedora packages
themselves (problems in specfile, etc), use this bugzilla and the respective
package names.
> > Let me know what is your decision on the branch you're going to take
> > initially, outside the small changes that I suggest in this comment, I see
> > the package acceptable for a formal review
> >
> Lets go rawhide then anyway. Hopefully we'll be quick enough to get it in to
> FC19 before its release?
You can do f18/f19/rawhide at once and be done with it.
> Spec URL: http://nm-ssh.cloudapp.net/NetworkManager-ssh.spec
> SRPM URL:
> http://nm-ssh.cloudapp.net/NetworkManager-ssh-0.0.3-0.5.20130330git0fe4747.
> fc18.src.rpm
Thanks!
--
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=CXbKZX5xB5&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564
--- Comment #18 from Dan Fruehauf ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> Hi Dan.
>
> I think the best way we can proceed is to first bring this package to the
> devel branch, aka rawhide or f19, and then open the bug against f18, You can
> always ask a package change request, requesting a new branch
>
> About the latest comments, regarding the package:
>
> (In reply to comment #12)
> > Fixed (it was the order, yes?)
>
> Indeed
>
> > > - You provide this patch
> > > %{_datadir}/gnome-vpn-properties/ssh,
> > Which patch?
> I'm sorry for the typo s/patch/path, ;)
>
>
> > A bit of a confusion about the changelog in the spec.
> > Say I have revision X which is last for the changelog, however revision Y,
> > which is newer is the version I want to build, if I build revision Y and the
> > last entry is revision X, rpmlint complains about it.
> > Hence I assume that in the changelog, the last entry should be of the commit
> > I currently build (which doesn't make any sense, because it's not the last
> > commit the spec was changed), correct me if I'm wrong.
> > So I've included an entry of:
> > '* Thu Mar 28 2013 Dan Fruehauf -
> > 0.0.3-0.4.%{checkout}'
> > Any other entry will result in a rpmlint yielding an error. Please clarify
> > that issue for me.
>
> Let's go to the list of commits
> https://github.com/danfruehauf/NetworkManager-ssh/commits/master
> the two latest commits are
> 1af74fd6251eb031dc33753d35c230b98a34ec21
> and
> ccf99d29a55b3090603c6266906142bc513de1c0
>
> The fedora package maintainers, must try and as far as possible to package
> the latest version of the package which owns.
>
> So, if you have something like this
> %global commit 1af74fd6251eb031dc33753d35c230b98a34ec21
> %global shortcommit %(c=%{commit}; echo ${c:0:7})
> %global checkout 20130328git%{shortcommit}
>
> the changelog should be
> * Thu Mar 28 2013 Dan Fruehauf -
> 0.0.3-0.4.20130328git1af74fd
> - Fixed more issues in spec to conform with Fedora Packaging standards
>
> respecting the snapshot taken.
>
> Now in fact, the last commit you have in your git is
> ccf99d29a55b3090603c6266906142bc513de1c0
> so your spec should look like this
>
> %global commit ccf99d29a55b3090603c6266906142bc513de1c
> %global shortcommit %(c=%{commit}; echo ${c:0:7})
> %global checkout 20130329git%{shortcommit}
>
> and the changelog
>
> * Thu Mar 29 2013 Dan Fruehauf -
> 0.0.3-0.5.20130329gitccf99d2
> - New comment about the changes.
It's a bit like a chicken and egg.
I'll just prepare a correct spec with the current date and the last revision.
>
> Btw, althought 0.0.3-0.4.%{checkout} is an elegant solution, is not allowed
> because in the changelog, macros are not acceptable
>
> check it
>
> rpmlint -iv NetworkManager-ssh-0.0.3-0.4.20130328git1af74fd.fc20.src.rpm
> NetworkManager-ssh.src: I: checking
> NetworkManager-ssh.src: I: checking-url
> https://github.com/danfruehauf/NetworkManager-ssh (timeout 10 seconds)
> NetworkManager-ssh.src:67: W: macro-in-%changelog %{checkout}
> Macros are expanded in %changelog too, which can in unfortunate cases lead to
> the package not building at all, or other subtle unexpected conditions that
> affect the build. Even when that doesn't happen, the expansion results in
> possibly "rewriting history" on subsequent package revisions and generally
> odd
> entries eg. in source rpms, which is rarely wanted. Avoid use of macros in
> %changelog altogether, or use two '%'s to escape them, like '%%foo'.
>
> NetworkManager-ssh.src: I: checking-url
> https://github.com/danfruehauf/NetworkManager-ssh/archive/
> 1af74fd6251eb031dc33753d35c230b98a34ec21/NetworkManager-ssh-0.0.3-1af74fd.
> tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds)
> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
>
New src.rpm is good to go:
[dan@ugi fedora-rpms]$ rpmlint -vi
NetworkManager-ssh-0.0.3-0.5.20130330git0fe4747.fc18.src.rpm
NetworkManager-ssh.src: I: checking
NetworkManager-ssh.src: I: checking-url
https://github.com/danfruehauf/NetworkManager-ssh (timeout 10 seconds)
NetworkManager-ssh.src: I: checking-url
https://github.com/danfruehauf/NetworkManager-ssh/archive/0fe47471442629954484cb128b1b610cf0576a68/NetworkManager-ssh-0.0.3-0fe4747.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Current spec file is spotless!! :)
>
> > Speaking of which, if you've found so many errors here, are you aware of the
> > status of NetworkManager and all of the rest of its plugins?
>
> Yes, I am aware, so I invite you to open new bugs against these packages
> that have these issues, once you are maintainer (non limiting) even you can
> do right now if you want.
I might actually do it and provide patches since I know what has to be done
more or less. I'll talk to the guys on #nm.
>
> Let me know what is your decision on the branch you're going to take
> initially, outside the small changes that I suggest in this comment, I see
> the
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564
--- Comment #17 from Eduardo Echeverria ---
Hi Dan.
I think the best way we can proceed is to first bring this package to the devel
branch, aka rawhide or f19, and then open the bug against f18, You can always
ask a package change request, requesting a new branch
About the latest comments, regarding the package:
(In reply to comment #12)
> Fixed (it was the order, yes?)
Indeed
> > - You provide this patch
> > %{_datadir}/gnome-vpn-properties/ssh,
> Which patch?
I'm sorry for the typo s/patch/path, ;)
> A bit of a confusion about the changelog in the spec.
> Say I have revision X which is last for the changelog, however revision Y,
> which is newer is the version I want to build, if I build revision Y and the
> last entry is revision X, rpmlint complains about it.
> Hence I assume that in the changelog, the last entry should be of the commit
> I currently build (which doesn't make any sense, because it's not the last
> commit the spec was changed), correct me if I'm wrong.
> So I've included an entry of:
> '* Thu Mar 28 2013 Dan Fruehauf - 0.0.3-0.4.%{checkout}'
> Any other entry will result in a rpmlint yielding an error. Please clarify
> that issue for me.
Let's go to the list of commits
https://github.com/danfruehauf/NetworkManager-ssh/commits/master
the two latest commits are
1af74fd6251eb031dc33753d35c230b98a34ec21
and
ccf99d29a55b3090603c6266906142bc513de1c0
The fedora package maintainers, must try and as far as possible to package the
latest version of the package which owns.
So, if you have something like this
%global commit 1af74fd6251eb031dc33753d35c230b98a34ec21
%global shortcommit %(c=%{commit}; echo ${c:0:7})
%global checkout 20130328git%{shortcommit}
the changelog should be
* Thu Mar 28 2013 Dan Fruehauf -
0.0.3-0.4.20130328git1af74fd
- Fixed more issues in spec to conform with Fedora Packaging standards
respecting the snapshot taken.
Now in fact, the last commit you have in your git is
ccf99d29a55b3090603c6266906142bc513de1c0
so your spec should look like this
%global commit ccf99d29a55b3090603c6266906142bc513de1c
%global shortcommit %(c=%{commit}; echo ${c:0:7})
%global checkout 20130329git%{shortcommit}
and the changelog
* Thu Mar 29 2013 Dan Fruehauf -
0.0.3-0.5.20130329gitccf99d2
- New comment about the changes.
Btw, althought 0.0.3-0.4.%{checkout} is an elegant solution, is not allowed
because in the changelog, macros are not acceptable
check it
rpmlint -iv NetworkManager-ssh-0.0.3-0.4.20130328git1af74fd.fc20.src.rpm
NetworkManager-ssh.src: I: checking
NetworkManager-ssh.src: I: checking-url
https://github.com/danfruehauf/NetworkManager-ssh (timeout 10 seconds)
NetworkManager-ssh.src:67: W: macro-in-%changelog %{checkout}
Macros are expanded in %changelog too, which can in unfortunate cases lead to
the package not building at all, or other subtle unexpected conditions that
affect the build. Even when that doesn't happen, the expansion results in
possibly "rewriting history" on subsequent package revisions and generally odd
entries eg. in source rpms, which is rarely wanted. Avoid use of macros in
%changelog altogether, or use two '%'s to escape them, like '%%foo'.
NetworkManager-ssh.src: I: checking-url
https://github.com/danfruehauf/NetworkManager-ssh/archive/1af74fd6251eb031dc33753d35c230b98a34ec21/NetworkManager-ssh-0.0.3-1af74fd.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
> Speaking of which, if you've found so many errors here, are you aware of the
> status of NetworkManager and all of the rest of its plugins?
Yes, I am aware, so I invite you to open new bugs against these packages that
have these issues, once you are maintainer (non limiting) even you can do right
now if you want.
Let me know what is your decision on the branch you're going to take initially,
outside the small changes that I suggest in this comment, I see the package
acceptable for a formal review
Cheers
--
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=bZhX9H3BL1&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564 --- Comment #16 from Dan Fruehauf --- (In reply to comment #15) > (In reply to comment #14) > > Pavel, > > > > True, yes. I provided the patch a couple of days ago. You were responding to > > that as well. > > Yes, you provided it upstream and the Fedora maintainers are upstream > developers. > > > From my personal perspective I really don't mind if it'll make it only in > > FC19 or anything. > > That is why I think it would be the best way to start the Fedora > NetworkManager bug report. That way you can ask the maintainers to include > that patch or a release/snapshot of NM in rawhide and possibly in F19 and > even F18. > > That way you give them a chance to respond. > > > The link is here: > > https://mail.gnome.org/archives/networkmanager-list/2013-March/msg00108.html > > > > I can attach the patch here which could be very easily back ported. > > > > I'm very much a newbie when it comes to Fedora releases, so I'll let you > > guys call the shots and I'll follow with whatever is decided. > > This is not how it works. You, as the future maintainer, decide which > releases you target with your package. This bug report is not suitable for > thorough discussions of what should be done with NetworkManager itself, as > it's a bug for NetworkManager-ssh. That's why a new bug report should be IMO > started unless you already know the policy works for you in the releases. Thanks for letting me take responsibility. As you can see I'm trying to get advice from the experienced people here :) If so, I'll try to target FC18, as I think the NetworkManager patch is tiny and could be implemented easily (it's not even a code change). So say I want to open a bug report, what should be the topic? Any standard for the topic? 'NetworkManager-ssh dbus support in NetworkManager' with a target of FC18? Then should I attach the suggested patch and hope that the maintainer will include it in the next build of NetworkManager on FC18? Should I make this bug depend on the bug I'm going to open? > > > As you can see I do my best to make things work the Fedora way. > > Then I believe the Fedora way is what I described above :). Many thanks Pavel. :) -- 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=YnVIOVzia9&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564 --- Comment #15 from Pavel Šimerda --- (In reply to comment #14) > Pavel, > > True, yes. I provided the patch a couple of days ago. You were responding to > that as well. Yes, you provided it upstream and the Fedora maintainers are upstream developers. > From my personal perspective I really don't mind if it'll make it only in > FC19 or anything. That is why I think it would be the best way to start the Fedora NetworkManager bug report. That way you can ask the maintainers to include that patch or a release/snapshot of NM in rawhide and possibly in F19 and even F18. That way you give them a chance to respond. > The link is here: > https://mail.gnome.org/archives/networkmanager-list/2013-March/msg00108.html > > I can attach the patch here which could be very easily back ported. > > I'm very much a newbie when it comes to Fedora releases, so I'll let you > guys call the shots and I'll follow with whatever is decided. This is not how it works. You, as the future maintainer, decide which releases you target with your package. This bug report is not suitable for thorough discussions of what should be done with NetworkManager itself, as it's a bug for NetworkManager-ssh. That's why a new bug report should be IMO started unless you already know the policy works for you in the releases. > As you can see I do my best to make things work the Fedora way. Then I believe the Fedora way is what I described above :). -- 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=RPSf7sMD6R&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564 --- Comment #14 from Dan Fruehauf --- Pavel, True, yes. I provided the patch a couple of days ago. You were responding to that as well. From my personal perspective I really don't mind if it'll make it only in FC19 or anything. The link is here: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/networkmanager-list/2013-March/msg00108.html I can attach the patch here which could be very easily back ported. I'm very much a newbie when it comes to Fedora releases, so I'll let you guys call the shots and I'll follow with whatever is decided. As you can see I do my best to make things work the Fedora way. Thanks, Dan. -- 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=GJED38vVby&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564 Pavel Šimerda changed: What|Removed |Added CC||psime...@redhat.com --- Comment #13 from Pavel Šimerda --- Just realized that NetworkManager-ssh doesn't work on Fedora 18 because of the dbus policy issues discussed on NetworkManager mailing list. Is it any better on branched Fedora 19 or rawhide? If not, you should probably start a bug report about that on NetworkManager and make your review request bug report depend on it. -- 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=ejp4sYS2Ag&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564
--- Comment #12 from Dan Fruehauf ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Hi Dan
>
> - not built in rawhide, g_type_init is deprecated in glib 2.35.4, the latest
> release in rawhide is glib2-2.36.0-1.fc20, please patch this, adding a
> conditional to built correctly
>
> nm-ssh-service.c:1552:2: error: 'g_type_init' is deprecated (declared at
> /usr/in
> clude/glib-2.0/gobject/gtype.h:669) [-Werror=deprecated-declarations]
> g_type_init ();
> ^
> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
> make[2]: *** [nm-ssh-service.o] Error 1
> make[2]: Leaving directory
> `/builddir/build/BUILD/NetworkManager-ssh-e27a6ae109f
> 0c1f715ee7bf6ae5abd8aff8c7480/src'
> make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
> make[1]: Leaving directory
> `/builddir/build/BUILD/NetworkManager-ssh-
> e27a6ae109f0c1f715ee7bf6ae5abd8aff8c7480'
> make: *** [all] Error 2
>
Fixed (guarding with an #ifdef around g_type_init())
Generally speaking, any Rawhide compiling machines I can use?
> - I had not seen this carefully
> %{_datadir}/gnome-vpn-properties/ssh/nm-ssh-dialog.ui
> %dir %{_datadir}/gnome-vpn-properties/ssh
> this must be
> %dir %{_datadir}/gnome-vpn-properties/ssh
> %{_datadir}/gnome-vpn-properties/ssh/nm-ssh-dialog.ui
>
Fixed (it was the order, yes?)
> -rpmlint output
>
> Rpmlint
> ---
> Checking: NetworkManager-ssh-0.0.3-0.3.20130326gite27a6ae.fc18.x86_64.rpm
> NetworkManager-ssh.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
> capabilites -> capabilities, capability, liabilities
Fixed the typo.
> NetworkManager-ssh.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog
> 0.0.3-0.3.20130326git7549f1db1b ['0.0.3-0.3.20130326gite27a6ae.fc18',
> '0.0.3-0.3.20130326gite27a6ae']
>
> Please double-check the changelog
>
> NetworkManager-ssh.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc
> /etc/dbus-1/system.d/nm-ssh-service.conf
> This should be marked as %config, probably, %config(noreplace)
>
Fixed.
> NetworkManager-ssh.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc
> /etc/NetworkManager/VPN/nm-ssh-service.name
> This should be marked as %config, probably, %config(noreplace)
> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
>
Fixed.
[dan@ugi fedora-rpms]$ rpmlint
/home/dan/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/NetworkManager-ssh-0.0.3-0.4.20130328git1af74fd.fc18.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
> - You provide this patch
> %{_datadir}/gnome-vpn-properties/ssh,
Which patch?
>
> echevemaster@echevemaster ~$ rpm -qf /usr/share/gnome-vpn-properties/
> nm-connection-editor-0.9.8.0-1.fc18.x86_64
>
> but %{_datadir}/gnome-vpn-properties
> is ownership (only f18) of nm-connection-editor, in previous releases is of
> NetworkManager-gnome, add the following conditional
>
> %if 0%{?fedora} > 17
> Requires: nm-connection-editor
> %else
> Requires: NetworkManager-gnome
> %endif
Fixed.
A bit of a confusion about the changelog in the spec.
Say I have revision X which is last for the changelog, however revision Y,
which is newer is the version I want to build, if I build revision Y and the
last entry is revision X, rpmlint complains about it.
Hence I assume that in the changelog, the last entry should be of the commit I
currently build (which doesn't make any sense, because it's not the last commit
the spec was changed), correct me if I'm wrong.
So I've included an entry of:
'* Thu Mar 28 2013 Dan Fruehauf - 0.0.3-0.4.%{checkout}'
Any other entry will result in a rpmlint yielding an error. Please clarify that
issue for me.
Speaking of which, if you've found so many errors here, are you aware of the
status of NetworkManager and all of the rest of its plugins?
Spec URL: http://nm-ssh.cloudapp.net/NetworkManager-ssh.spec
SRPM URL:
http://nm-ssh.cloudapp.net/NetworkManager-ssh-0.0.3-0.4.20130328git1af74fd.fc18.src.rpm
Thanks,
Dan.
--
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=EzznXLkZUW&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564
--- Comment #11 from Eduardo Echeverria ---
Hi Dan
- not built in rawhide, g_type_init is deprecated in glib 2.35.4, the latest
release in rawhide is glib2-2.36.0-1.fc20, please patch this, adding a
conditional to built correctly
nm-ssh-service.c:1552:2: error: 'g_type_init' is deprecated (declared at
/usr/in
clude/glib-2.0/gobject/gtype.h:669) [-Werror=deprecated-declarations]
g_type_init ();
^
cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
make[2]: *** [nm-ssh-service.o] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory
`/builddir/build/BUILD/NetworkManager-ssh-e27a6ae109f
0c1f715ee7bf6ae5abd8aff8c7480/src'
make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory
`/builddir/build/BUILD/NetworkManager-ssh-e27a6ae109f0c1f715ee7bf6ae5abd8aff8c7480'
make: *** [all] Error 2
- I had not seen this carefully
%{_datadir}/gnome-vpn-properties/ssh/nm-ssh-dialog.ui
%dir %{_datadir}/gnome-vpn-properties/ssh
this must be
%dir %{_datadir}/gnome-vpn-properties/ssh
%{_datadir}/gnome-vpn-properties/ssh/nm-ssh-dialog.ui
-rpmlint output
Rpmlint
---
Checking: NetworkManager-ssh-0.0.3-0.3.20130326gite27a6ae.fc18.x86_64.rpm
NetworkManager-ssh.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US capabilites
-> capabilities, capability, liabilities
NetworkManager-ssh.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog
0.0.3-0.3.20130326git7549f1db1b ['0.0.3-0.3.20130326gite27a6ae.fc18',
'0.0.3-0.3.20130326gite27a6ae']
Please double-check the changelog
NetworkManager-ssh.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/dbus-1/system.d/nm-ssh-service.conf
This should be marked as %config, probably, %config(noreplace)
NetworkManager-ssh.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/NetworkManager/VPN/nm-ssh-service.name
This should be marked as %config, probably, %config(noreplace)
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
- You provide this patch
%{_datadir}/gnome-vpn-properties/ssh,
echevemaster@echevemaster ~$ rpm -qf /usr/share/gnome-vpn-properties/
nm-connection-editor-0.9.8.0-1.fc18.x86_64
but %{_datadir}/gnome-vpn-properties
is ownership (only f18) of nm-connection-editor, in previous releases is of
NetworkManager-gnome, add the following conditional
%if 0%{?fedora} > 17
Requires: nm-connection-editor
%else
Requires: NetworkManager-gnome
%endif
--
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=Uk0QNTXNNn&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564
--- Comment #10 from Dan Fruehauf ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Hi Dan, I'm sorry for delay, I was busy in this days.
>
> (In reply to comment #8)
>
> > - Building RPM with .gz and not .xz
> >- Verified the github URL is valid
> > (https://github.com/danfruehauf/NetworkManager-ssh/archive/
> > 8767415030da697a1a08cb536166c0ca7bb037b2/NetworkManager-ssh-0.0.3-8767415.
> > tar.gz)
> I have a question about this, and I'll summarize in the following points:
> 1.- If you download the tarball in SOURCES folder and extracted the files
> of this tarball the resultant folder should be
> NetworkManager-ssh-8767415030da697a1a08cb536166c0ca7bb037b2, Why the tarball
> in the SRPM is NetworkManager-ssh-0.0.3? the tarball should not be modified,
> that means that the sources must be pristine, should be packaged as they
> are, the only way in which it can be modified is via patch.
>
Taking a tarball from the github URL specified - fixed.
> 2.- %setup in this case should be %setup -q -n %{name}-%{commit}
>
Fixed and works (tested build from src.rpm).
> 3.- the sources in github they have no file autogen.sh or configure,
> therefore, mock fails to build. check it with mock or fedora-review
>
Changed to autoreconf -fvi
Added 'BuildRequires: autoconf'
> > - Remove scriptlets
> >- If there's nothing in %post and $postun, should the sections exist
> > anyway?
> %post and %postun must be removed,
> Requires(post): %{_bindir}/update-desktop-database
> Requires(postun): %{_bindir}/update-desktop-database
> also must be removed
Removed, fixed.
>
>
> > - I've changed the %{checkout} tag to conform the standards, although it's
> > not 100% clear. An example in that file would make things heaps clearer...
> >- What is exactly %{alphatag}? Is it defined at all? %{X}?
> >- Currently I have 'Release: 2.%{checkout}%{?dist}'
> >- Release (2, or %{X}) is separated by a comma from %{checkout}
> >- %{checkout} is 20130322git%{shortcommit} - much like
> > '20110102git9e88d7e' in the URL
>
> a good example is this link:
>
> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/python-docutils.git/tree/python-docutils.
> spec
>
Followed that link and now 'Release: 0.3.%{checkout}%{?dist}'
So fixed as well.
> Release Tag for Pre-Release Packages: 0.%{X}.%{alphatag}
> Where %{X} is the release number increment, and %{alphatag} is the string
> that came from the version
>
> i.e.
>
> 0.2.20130322git8767415 => 0.%{X}.%{alphatag}
> also in the changelog
>
Fixed.
> Fri Mar 22 2013 Dan Fruehauf -
> 0.0.3-0.2.20130322git8767415
> - Changes to conform with Fedora packaging standards
>
Fixed.
> > I really hope we're making some sort of progress, I'm really trying my best
> > as you can see... :)
> Of course we are progressing, after we have reviewed the package thoroughly,
> You will be sponsored ;)
>
> Regards
> Eduardo -
Spec URL: http://nm-ssh.cloudapp.net/NetworkManager-ssh.spec
SRPM URL:
http://nm-ssh.cloudapp.net/NetworkManager-ssh-0.0.3-0.3.20130326gite27a6ae.fc18.src.rpm
Thanks,
Dan.
--
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=QtqejmXuze&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564
--- Comment #9 from Eduardo Echeverria ---
Hi Dan, I'm sorry for delay, I was busy in this days.
(In reply to comment #8)
> - Building RPM with .gz and not .xz
>- Verified the github URL is valid
> (https://github.com/danfruehauf/NetworkManager-ssh/archive/
> 8767415030da697a1a08cb536166c0ca7bb037b2/NetworkManager-ssh-0.0.3-8767415.
> tar.gz)
I have a question about this, and I'll summarize in the following points:
1.- If you download the tarball in SOURCES folder and extracted the files of
this tarball the resultant folder should be
NetworkManager-ssh-8767415030da697a1a08cb536166c0ca7bb037b2, Why the tarball in
the SRPM is NetworkManager-ssh-0.0.3? the tarball should not be modified, that
means that the sources must be pristine, should be packaged as they are, the
only way in which it can be modified is via patch.
2.- %setup in this case should be %setup -q -n %{name}-%{commit}
3.- the sources in github they have no file autogen.sh or configure, therefore,
mock fails to build. check it with mock or fedora-review
> - Remove scriptlets
>- If there's nothing in %post and $postun, should the sections exist
> anyway?
%post and %postun must be removed,
Requires(post): %{_bindir}/update-desktop-database
Requires(postun): %{_bindir}/update-desktop-database
also must be removed
> - I've changed the %{checkout} tag to conform the standards, although it's
> not 100% clear. An example in that file would make things heaps clearer...
>- What is exactly %{alphatag}? Is it defined at all? %{X}?
>- Currently I have 'Release: 2.%{checkout}%{?dist}'
>- Release (2, or %{X}) is separated by a comma from %{checkout}
>- %{checkout} is 20130322git%{shortcommit} - much like
> '20110102git9e88d7e' in the URL
a good example is this link:
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/python-docutils.git/tree/python-docutils.spec
Release Tag for Pre-Release Packages: 0.%{X}.%{alphatag}
Where %{X} is the release number increment, and %{alphatag} is the string that
came from the version
i.e.
0.2.20130322git8767415 => 0.%{X}.%{alphatag}
also in the changelog
Fri Mar 22 2013 Dan Fruehauf -
0.0.3-0.2.20130322git8767415
- Changes to conform with Fedora packaging standards
> I really hope we're making some sort of progress, I'm really trying my best
> as you can see... :)
Of course we are progressing, after we have reviewed the package thoroughly,
You will be sponsored ;)
Regards
Eduardo -
--
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=frZijliHe2&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564
--- Comment #8 from Dan Fruehauf ---
Hi Eduardo,
Seems almost like I manage to get one step forward and three steps back :)
- Fixed changelog in spec file, including only changes to spec (packaging
wise)
- Building RPM with .gz and not .xz
- Verified the github URL is valid
(https://github.com/danfruehauf/NetworkManager-ssh/archive/8767415030da697a1a08cb536166c0ca7bb037b2/NetworkManager-ssh-0.0.3-8767415.tar.gz)
- Remove scriptlets
- If there's nothing in %post and $postun, should the sections exist anyway?
- %{checkout} is defined by hand and conforming what I could understand in the
URL you've provided
- I've changed the %{checkout} tag to conform the standards, although it's not
100% clear. An example in that file would make things heaps clearer...
- What is exactly %{alphatag}? Is it defined at all? %{X}?
- Currently I have 'Release: 2.%{checkout}%{?dist}'
- Release (2, or %{X}) is separated by a comma from %{checkout}
- %{checkout} is 20130322git%{shortcommit} - much like '20110102git9e88d7e'
in the URL
- But I'm not using epoch anyway anymore anywhere! No versioned dependencies
I've posted a new .spec and SRPM:
Spec URL: http://nm-ssh.cloudapp.net/NetworkManager-ssh.spec
SRPM URL:
http://nm-ssh.cloudapp.net/NetworkManager-ssh-0.0.3-2.20130322git8767415.fc18.src.rpm
I really hope we're making some sort of progress, I'm really trying my best as
you can see... :)
Many thanks,
Dan.
--
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=pvjudxU81j&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564
--- Comment #7 from Eduardo Echeverria ---
Hi again Dan
I go back on my words, the changelog is not related to the code changes of the
application, is related with the changes in the spec, by example, a good
changelog would look like this
* Wed Mar 20 2013 Dan Fruehauf - 0.0.0-2
- Added COPYING file
- Removed ChangeLog file from RPM package as a full changelog is in the spec
* Wed Mar 20 2013 Dan Fruehauf - 0.0.0-1
- Initial packaging
Remember bump the release number, every time you make a change to spec.
As you can see only in the changelog, only there entries about the
modifications made to spec
- Afaik, Github not generate xz files, only zip or tar.gz.
https://github.com/danfruehauf/NetworkManager-ssh/archive/cf6c00f117a761c8b0e88462c84e99df58c4a352/NetworkManager-ssh-0.0.3-cf6c00f.tar.xz
gives an error 404 not so:
https://github.com/danfruehauf/NetworkManager-ssh/archive/cf6c00f117a761c8b0e88462c84e99df58c4a352/NetworkManager-ssh-0.0.3-cf6c00f.tar.gz
or
https://github.com/danfruehauf/NetworkManager-ssh/archive/cf6c00f117a761c8b0e88462c84e99df58c4a352/NetworkManager-ssh-0.0.3-cf6c00f.zip
you should also download the file, preserving the timestamps, with the command
wget -N or curl -R. see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps
this scriptlets:
%post
/usr/bin/update-desktop-database > /dev/null
touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor
if [ -x /usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache ]; then
/usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache --quiet %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || :
fi
%postun
/usr/bin/update-desktop-database > /dev/null
touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor
if [ -x /usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache ]; then
/usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache --quiet %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || :
fi
not needed, no there .desktop files or icons listed in your spec, equally is
applicable to Requires, for the same reason
Requires(post): %{_bindir}/update-desktop-database
Requires(postun): %{_bindir}/update-desktop-database
- Please the date of the snapshot should be placed by hand
- the naming is incorrect, in the case of pre-release package you should follow
this guidelines
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages
- Please, remember my comment in the case of NetworkManager-devel, or any
package that makes use of epoch
(In reply to comment #5)
> Oh, i'm sorry, i had a copy n' paste error (in the case of
> NetworkManager-devel) , this not applied to the dependent packages with
> epoch, which must be declared anywhere as %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release}
See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Use_of_Epochs
I quote:
"Also, Epoch complicates normal packaging guidelines. If a package uses an
Epoch, it must be referred to in any place where %{version}-%{release} is used.
For example, if a package being depended upon has an Epoch, this must be listed
when adding a versioned dependency:
Requires: foo = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release}. "
Cheers
--
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=kNf9HsLHiL&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564 --- Comment #6 from Dan Fruehauf --- Hey again, - All versions were greater, so they were removed. Not depending on these versions anymore. - Fixed release tag according to: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Release_Tag http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github - Added COPYING file - Removed ChangeLog file from RPM package as a full changelog is in the spec - Decided it'll be a pre release as things are still in development over there Files are here for your reinspection: Spec URL: http://nm-ssh.cloudapp.net/NetworkManager-ssh.spec SRPM URL: http://nm-ssh.cloudapp.net/NetworkManager-ssh-0.0.3-pre1.20130321gitcf6c00f.fc18.src.rpm Appreciated. -- 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=Fmdslybs55&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564
--- Comment #5 from Eduardo Echeverria ---
Oh, i'm sorry, i had a copy n' paste error (in the case of
NetworkManager-devel) , this not applied to the dependent packages with epoch,
which must be declared anywhere as %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release}
--
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=uVctHrPGDS&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564
--- Comment #4 from Eduardo Echeverria ---
Hi
(In reply to comment #3)
I'm generating the Changelog dynamically from github commits, is that OK?
No, the changelog are related to the spec not to the code changes, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs, please place
the changelog by hand
%define snapshot ___snapshot___
%define realversion ___version___
Version: ___version___
Release: 1%{snapshot}%{?dist}
and equally either the snapshot or version must be placed by hand, see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages
> - The .spec I've attached is being handled by a make target (make rpm) and
> does the following:
>- Replaces version in .spec
>- Replaces github version (revision) in .spec
>- Generates the Changelog
Although this is fine for generating rpms on demand, not right for a valid rpm
in Fedora repositories
- Please add COPYING file, in this moment not listed in %doc
- Please, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group#Convincing_someone_to_sponsor_you,
to search a willing sponsor, especially try doing some informal reviews to
other packagers.
- Remember check the available versions of gtk3-devel, dbus-devel,
NetworkManager-devel, NetworkManager-glib-devel, if the versions are greater
than which you define, the declarations >= are not necessary (
Example:
echevemaster@echevemaster ~$ repoquery -qf --whatprovides --releasever=18
NetworkManager-devel
NetworkManager-devel-1:0.9.7.0-12.git20121004.fc18.i686
NetworkManager-devel-1:0.9.7.0-12.git20121004.fc18.x86_64
NetworkManager-devel-1:0.9.8.0-1.fc18.i686
NetworkManager-devel-1:0.9.8.0-1.fc18.x86_64
NetworkManager-devel-1:0.9.7.0-12.git20121004.fc18.i686
NetworkManager-devel-1:0.9.7.0-12.git20121004.fc18.x86_64
* NetworkManager-devel-1:0.9.8.0-1.fc18.i686
* NetworkManager-devel-1:0.9.8.0-1.fc18.x86_64
in your case the system-wide version is greater than you which you define
%define nm_version 1:0.9.2
--
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=2Pz9ekJIQY&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564
Dan Fruehauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
--- Comment #3 from Dan Fruehauf ---
Hi,
First and foremost thank you. I'm happy to be part of Fedora. And thank you for
the prompt and detailed response.
I'll relate to the points you've mentioned one by one.
- Added FE-NEEDSPONSOR
- Using now %global instead of %define
- Removed Epoch tag
- I'll have a look shortly at the guidelines for github projects, I was
actually looking for something like that
- Added a TODO for myself to remove these lines if they are unnecessary
- Changed the install call to what you suggested:
make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} INSTALL="install -p" CP="cp -p" install
- No .desktop files, it merely installs a NetworkManager plugin
- No installing any icons as far as I'm concerned
- Removed the %defattr line
- I'm generating the Changelog dynamically from github commits, is that OK?
- I'm based on the code in NetworkManager-openvpn, however by that time the
code is totally different and serves a totally different purpose. There will
always be similarity between the various VPN plugins as they implement the same
interface, but solves a different problem.
- The .spec I've attached is being handled by a make target (make rpm) and
does the following:
- Replaces version in .spec
- Replaces github version (revision) in .spec
- Generates the Changelog
- I'm pretty sure after I'll read the github guidelines I'll be smarter about
all of that.
Thanks,
Dan.
--
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=8oEUdI6wk2&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564
--- Comment #2 from Eduardo Echeverria ---
Btw, the spec file are not the same of the SRPM's spec
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
-
--- /home/makerpm/923564-NetworkManager-ssh/srpm/NetworkManager-ssh.spec
2013-03-20 02:23:51.347271233 -0430
+++
/home/makerpm/923564-NetworkManager-ssh/srpm-unpacked/NetworkManager-ssh.spec
2013-03-20 02:23:51.876271264 -0430
@@ -5,11 +5,11 @@
%define shared_mime_version 0.16-3
-%define snapshot ___snapshot___
-%define realversion ___version___
+%define snapshot .20130320git6467963
+%define realversion 0.0.3
Summary: NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Name: NetworkManager-ssh
Epoch: 1
-Version: ___version___
+Version: 0.0.3
Release: 1%{snapshot}%{?dist}
License: GPLv2+
@@ -86,2 +86,290 @@
%changelog
+* Fri Mar 15 2013 Dan Fruehauf
+- (6467963) greatly improved rpm building: * using a proper changelog
extracted from git * including a git revision tag and date * adding a dirty
tag for local modifications * using a dynamic version in spec (HEAD,
origin/master, origin/HEAD, master)
+
+* Thu Mar 7 2013 Dan Fruehauf
+- (6503b7e) not building with ipv6 if no NetworkManager >= 0.9.6 found, also
suggesting user to run with '--without-ipv6'
+
+* Wed Mar 6 2013 Dan Fruehauf
+- (2238d45) Merge branch 'master' of github.com:danfruehauf/NetworkManager-ssh
+
+* Wed Mar 6 2013 Dan Fruehauf
+- (5cfce45) Moved the 'How does it work?' section to the end as it might
confuses users
+
+* Wed Mar 6 2013 Dan Fruehauf
+- (6c7f468) waiting for QUIT signal, as specified by this bug for the
openconnect plugin: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=674991 - thanks
for Oren Held for pointing that out
+
+* Mon Mar 4 2013 Dan Fruehauf
+- (7ed31a7) Fixes warning on debian, thanks to Whoopie
+
+* Fri Mar 1 2013 Dan Fruehauf
+- (4569aac) update README.md with debugging information
+
+* Fri Mar 1 2013 Dan Fruehauf
+- (a813a7c) added import support
+
+* Mon Feb 25 2013 Dan Fruehauf
+- (28fc866) updated screenshots
+
+* Mon Feb 25 2013 Dan Fruehauf
+- (b07cab1) updated screenshots
+
+* Mon Feb 25 2013 Dan Fruehauf
+- (3f7f43a) fixed build, stupid mistake
+
+* Mon Feb 25 2013 Dan Fruehauf
+- (dcde283) added better handling of errors - canceling ifconfig timer if ssh
has quitted
+
+* Mon Feb 25 2013 Dan Fruehauf
+- (ce6c4c1) allowing to use also tap0/tun0
+
+* Mon Feb 25 2013 Dan Fruehauf
+- (41ffe16) fixed ipv6 support when running with --without-ipv6
+
+* Mon Feb 25 2013 Dan Fruehauf
+- (351368f) refactored ui file
+
+* Mon Feb 25 2013 Dan Fruehauf
+- (d3d652f) Merge branch 'master' of github.com:danfruehauf/NetworkManager-ssh
+
+* Mon Feb 25 2013 Dan Fruehauf
+- (8d53f80) ipv6 support optional
+
+* Mon Feb 25 2013 Dan Fruehauf
+- (4be9c54) fixed changelogs
+
+* Mon Feb 25 2013 Dan Fruehauf
+- (5d403e4) Merge branch 'master' of github.com:danfruehauf/NetworkManager-ssh
+
+* Mon Feb 25 2013 Dan Fruehauf
+- (b4733f2) incremented version to 0.0.3
+
+* Mon Feb 25 2013 Dan Fruehauf
+- (45f2e5b) added ipv6 support
+
+* Sun Feb 24 2013 Dan Fruehauf
+- (1dc1873) slight fix to README.md
+
+* Sun Feb 24 2013 Dan Fruehauf
+- (e8396f4) applied Whoopie's patch for all, not just debian
+
+* Sun Feb 24 2013 Dan Fruehauf
+- (9ed57cd) reversed Whoopie's libexec patch
+
+* Sun Feb 24 2013 Dan Fruehauf
+- (bb9d011) updated README.md
+
+* Sat Feb 23 2013 Dan Fruehauf
+- (13276e1) improved exporting
+
+* Sat Feb 23 2013 Dan Fruehauf
+- (b679426) nm_ssh_get_free_device now looking properly for a free tun/tap
device
+
+* Sat Feb 23 2013 Dan Fruehauf
+- (0faf649) improved error handling from the SSH process, removed some TODOs
as well
+
+* Sat Feb 23 2013 Dan Fruehauf
+- (3e9dfed) added option to specify username (although would most likely be
root)
+
+* Sat Feb 23 2013 Dan Fruehauf
+- (3fe1e00) fixed LIBEXECDIR in nm-ssh-service.name.in, thanks to Whoopie
+
+* Sat Feb 23 2013 Dan Fruehauf
+- (1a8b359) added export functionality for tap devices
+
+* Sat Feb 23 2013 Dan Fruehauf
+- (5892292) added tap support
+
+* Sat Feb 23 2013 Dan Fruehauf
+- (e439814) fixed POTFILES.in, thanks to Whoopie
+
+* Sat Feb 23 2013 Dan Fruehauf
+- (aab4a37) improved debian build with git versioning, thanks to Whoopie
+
+* Wed Feb 20 2013 Dan Fruehauf
+- (011a210) fixed system command when probing for tun devices
+
+* Tue Feb 19 2013 Dan Fruehauf
+- (bd4202f) removing fds after ssh process exits, solves the problem of 100%
cpu after process exits
+
+* Tue Feb 19 2013 Dan Fruehauf
+- (7ba8924) * config variable for SSH_AUTH_SOCK * config variable for
SSH_KNOWN_HOSTS_PATH
+
+* Tue Feb 19 2013 Dan Fruehauf
+- (ee12daa) * supressing error when probing tun devices * ifconfig is now a
constant
+
+* Tue Feb 19 2013 Dan Fruehauf
+- (9375210) using user's known_hosts file instead of root's
+
+* Tue Feb 19 2013 Dan Fruehauf
+- (817184d) added proper ignores
+
+* Tue Feb 19 2013 Dan Fruehauf
+- (efbe6aa) added warning dialog if ssh-agent
[Bug 923564] Review Request: NetworkManager-ssh - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSH
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923564
Eduardo Echeverria changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||echevemas...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Eduardo Echeverria ---
Hi Dan, welcome to fedora, some few comments about their spec:
- Please put the flag FE-NEEDSPONSOR in the field "Blocks"
I think this spec is based on this
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/NetworkManager-openvpn.git/tree/NetworkManager-openvpn.spec
but even this spec does not this exempt of some errors
- the use of %define is deprecated, in their instead use %global See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define
- Epoch should only be used in Fedora as a last resort to resolve upgrade
ordering of a package see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Use_of_Epochs
- We have new guidelines that covering how to handle sources from Github in a
Fedora Package See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github
- Check the versions available on fedora, I'm sure that we are in the higher
versions than those defined here
%define nm_version 1:0.9.2
%define dbus_version1.1
%define gtk2_version3.0.1
%define openssh_version 6.1
%define shared_mime_version 0.16-3
if so it will not be necessary to define
- not needed define %{__install}
rpm -E %{__install}
/usr/bin/install
in
make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} INSTALL="%{__install} -p"
you can call "install" directly
make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} INSTALL="install -p" CP="cp -p" install
- I fail to see any files .desktop (installed or listed) in
/usr/share/applications/, update-desktop-database is used when a desktop entry
has a 'MimeType key. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop-database
- this scriptlet must be used if the application install icons into one of the
subdirectories in %{_datadir}/icons/ see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache
touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor
if [ -x /usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache ]; then
/usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache --quiet %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || :
fi
- %defattr(-, root, root) is not needed
- Why no there changelog entries ?
- one question, this fork just taking whatever is in the current
NetworkManager-openvpn tree or diverge? See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries
Cheers
- Eduardo
--
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=e0FYEnJKR5&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
