Re: SAML SSO always redirect to dashboard, even when next parameter is specified in the URL

[Stephen Morton]

I'm running into this too. A user faces the following when they have to log 
in. It is frustrating for them.

- Clicks on a link to  https://reviewboard.example.com/r/161895/
- Clicks on the "Login via SSO" button and gets redirected to SAML SSO
- Gets redirected back to https://reviewboard.example.com/dashboard <-- Not 
the actual review
- Now has to go back to original link and re-click on it so get properly to 
review 161895 


Steve



On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 6:17:35 PM UTC-4 Minh Huy Vo wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I've recently set up SAML SSO in reviewboard to conenct with my company's 
> internal SSO. One thing I get complained about is when users receive email 
> about a review, after they click the URL  and click the SSO button to 
> login, instead of being redirected to that review, they are redirected to 
> the dashboard. I've taken a look at reviewboard's source code and can see 
> that users are always redirected back to dashboard when using SSO (see  
> reviewboard/views.py 
> at release-5.0.1 · reviewboard/reviewboard · GitHub 
> ).
>  
> I'm using reviewboard-5.0.1, upgrade it to 5.0.4 doesn't seem to fix the 
> problem. 
>
> Has anyone raised this issue before? 
>
> Regards,
> Huy Vo.

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Review Board Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/reviewboard/62b57fe0-311b-4449-887b-557f52430b31n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: unable to install ReviewBoard

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 10:04 AM Valentin Kragelj 
wrote:

> Hi,
> I'm using CentOS 8 (as a workstation) on virtual machine in Hyper-V
> Manager. Following this guide (
> https://hostpresto.com/community/tutorials/how-to-install-review-board-on-centos-7-2/
>  )
> I came until "sudo yum install ReviewBoard memcached -y" where I get "no
> match for argument: ReviewBoard. Error: unable to find a match".
>
> EPEL repo is installed and system is updated. I am out of ideas. Is
> ReviewBoard not supported on CentOS 8? And so, must I use CentOS 7?
>

I have not yet been able to package it for EPEL 8. It requires many old
packages and will need to be built as an Application Stream in EPEL.
Support for Application Streams will be coming in EPEL 8.1. In the
meantime, you can probably install it in an OCI container running CentOS 7
inside your CentOS 8 system.

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Review Board Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/reviewboard/CAFAoxCkiXr1xHFj-RZwN57p46VkiKvAadXGYMmJnCWCLGgT%3Dhg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Improving project communication: The ChangeLog

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 4:04 AM Christian Hammond
 wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> It's been a productive (and very busy) few months for us here at 
> Beanbag/Review Board. We've had our heads down working toward the 
> long-overdue (but justifiably delayed, for reasons I'll get into in another 
> post) Review Board 4.0 beta 1, growing the company to further fund 
> development, and working on and shipping improvements for our Power Pack and 
> RBCommons users.
>
> That said, I've dropped the ball on keeping people informed on where we are 
> with Review Board and what's coming. We haven't had a Review Board release in 
> a few months, and we're sometimes slow to respond to threads here. That's 
> created a perception that not much has been going on, which was brought to my 
> attention today. Definitely not the impression I meant to leave, but 
> absolutely understandable. So that's something we're going to fix.
>
>
> ChangeLog
>
> This Thursday, we're resuming an old series of blog posts we called 
> ChangeLog. This will go into the work we're currently doing for Review Board, 
> Power Pack, RBCommons, Review Bot, RBTools, and the company itself.
>
> Through ChangeLog, we're hoping to better communicate what we have in the 
> works, time tables (and the reasons for any delays), challenges, 
> architectural decisions, and answer any questions from the community.
>
> We're planning to make this a weekly blog post. We'll be posting them to the 
> community support list, Twitter, Reddit and the Beanbag Blog.
>
>
> Send us your questions!
>
> I'd like to answer some questions each week about our projects and 
> development. These can be about long-term plans, features, architecture, 
> integrations, extension capabilities, business, pretty much anything (though 
> we'd prefer keeping anything support-related separate).
>
> If you have anything to ask for this Thursday's ChangeLog, please reply here.
>

My number one question is about the timeline for Python 3 support;
Upstream support for Python 2 is ending in just a few months.

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Review Board Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/reviewboard/CAFAoxC%3D%2BfaFMgpkdoeTRuYD-25HnM3By8bmQzXXkVdW_W8RBcg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: LDAP Configuration

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 6:35 AM Paul Mansfield <
paul.mansfi...@agileanalog.com> wrote:

> I found the problem. facepalm. I should have guessed. damn selinux.
>
> I found it because I realised that the avatars weren't working as after
> fixing the directory permissions under .../htdocs/media they still didn't
> work, so I did a "setenforce permissive" and then discovered that, ldap
> login worked too.
>

Do the SELinux instructions I added to
https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/manual/dev/admin/installation/creating-sites/
need updating?

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Review Board Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/reviewboard/CAFAoxCmyHQ2jMrxq41VPWHfr210X0P8zJGvyM0WZhRX4fS1Gfg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Review Board 3.0.14 is out

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 11:00 AM Daniel  wrote:
>
> Hi Christian and Stephen,
>
> I just scanned the forums for possible updates concerning the 
> version-compatilities/ version-availabilites and found this post from March.
>
> Some time ago when i was even more unexperienced in the ways of how the 
> system needs to be to be able to run reviewboard i asked about EPELs and 
> RHELs for revieboard 3.x 
> (https://groups.google.com/d/msg/reviewboard/mSQPKhkKmMw/zFkNNf3gBgAJ)
>
> Since that time we are using RB in the Version 2.5.17 (the Version available 
> via yum like Paul mentioned).
>
> If i understand it correctly, than an EPEL can be configured for the RHEL7 
> and afterwards i can use yum to install something out of that EPEL7 repo 
> (e.g. reviewboard)
>
> Stephen was hoping that RB4 might be able to be delivered that way and 
> Christian was reducing that hope as there are still other hindering factors 
> so that the earliest maybe possible version of reviewboard available via an 
> EPEL again might be RB5. But this still is just a possibility and not certain.
>
> We are working with RHEL7 Machines and i personally do not have much legroom 
> to customize that install ... so i was curious what your last messages in 
> this thread might mean for me and my usecase.
>
> I would be very happy if you would maybe find the time to describe the way 
> (if there is any) in that i might be able to install a "more modern than 
> 2.5.17"-version of RB into a RHEL7 system without manually installing too 
> many dependencies.
>

Short version: I probably can't provide RB 3.0+ on EPEL 7 any time
soon. However, I do expect to be able to deliver 3.0 and later on EPEL
8 within the next six months. We have support for
Modularity/AppStreams in the works there and I will be able to package
the newer versions of Review Board for RHEL/CentOS 8.1+

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Review Board Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/reviewboard/CAFAoxCnwHKS-BAKTWYTjybZDJG%3DQU4qC38asv0hxiGRv-J6BJA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: In search of help packaging ReviewBoard 3.0.14 for Gentoo Linux, problem when running server, probably something simple I overlooked.

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:31 PM 'Eric Johnson' via Review Board
Community  wrote:
>
> Hi Christian,
>
> Thanks so much for the response! As near as I can tell, ReviewBoard "just 
> works" for the teams that use it here, so we're grateful for the quality work.
>
> The issue appears to be solved at this point, and it looks like operator 
> error. More details below.
>
> On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 12:58:31 AM UTC-7, Christian Hammond wrote:
>>
>> Hi Eric,
>>
>> Can you verify that rbintegrations was also packaged and that its extension 
>> is enabled?
>>
>>
>> We really don't advise installing from our tarballs, as we build the eggs 
>> and wheels with a particular setup to ensure they're packaged just right. It 
>> is of course possible to build with tarballs, but there are differences. The 
>> process of building eggs/wheels can result in changes to the required 
>> dependencies and to some of the build steps. It'd be best if the "source" 
>> could be the wheel, just extracted.
>
>
> Unfortunately, I don't see that installing from the "whl" files or the "egg" 
> files is really used at all on Gentoo. It is fairly straightforward to make 
> sure I get the dependencies right, since I had to encode the dependencies 
> into the Gentoo package ebuild files. As for getting the files right, a 
> recursive compare of the pip install vs. the Gentoo install shows that they 
> end up the same with the packages I created.
>
> The one challenge I observed with the ReviewBoard packages was that 
> rbintegrations included a small handfule of binary files that I needed to 
> copy over and add to the unpacked source.
>
> As for why my changes were not working when I wrote you initially, it appears 
> that I forgot to reset my virtual machine for testing purposes, and was 
> instead dealing with incremental changes, and it didn't work. When I reset my 
> VM, and applied the upgrade to the Gentoo packages on a "clean" install of 
> the 2.5.18 version, the end-result worked just fine.
>
> Thanks for your help. Your questions prodded me to keep looking, to make sure 
> I could properly describe the problem, and that got me to find my mistake.
>

For what it's worth, you might find my Fedora packaging to be useful
in guiding you here. Realistically, you probably want to do what I did
and just bundle the rbintegrations tarball with the ReviewBoard build.

The Fedora packaging is here:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ReviewBoard/tree/3.0

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Review Board Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/reviewboard/CAFAoxCmdOGs_7H1ymKJmRW_aQ8qmEk1dOfGT6BN429yD1d%3DKEA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: site-upgrade from 1.7.14 to 2.0.20 fails

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 9:25 AM Martin Großhauser
 wrote:
>
> I'm trying to upgrade ReviewBoard to 2.0.20, but site-upgrade fails with 
> output:
>
> # rb-site upgrade /var/www/reviewboard
> Rebuilding directory structure
> Updating database. This may take a while.
>
> The log output below, including warnings and errors,
> can be ignored unless upgrade fails.
>
> --  --
> Creating tables ...
> Upgrading Review Board from 1.7.14 to 2.0.20
> There are unapplied evolutions for auth.
> There are unapplied evolutions for contenttypes.
> There are unapplied evolutions for accounts.
> There are unapplied evolutions for attachments.
> There are unapplied evolutions for changedescs.
> There are unapplied evolutions for diffviewer.
> There are unapplied evolutions for hostingsvcs.
> There are unapplied evolutions for reviews.
> There are unapplied evolutions for scmtools.
> There are unapplied evolutions for site.
> Project signature has changed - an evolution is required
> Installing custom SQL ...
> Installing indexes ...
> Installed 0 object(s) from 0 fixture(s)
> The stored evolutions do not completely resolve all model changes.
>
> Run `./manage.py evolve --hint` to see a suggestion for the changes required.
>
> The following are the changes that could not be resolved:
> The application markup has been deleted
> In model attachments.FileAttachment:
> In field 'file':
> Property 'max_length' has changed
> In model hostingsvcs.HostingServiceAccount:
> Field 'hosting_url' has been added
> The model auth.Message has been deleted
> In model reviews.FileAttachmentComment:
> Field 'extra_data' has been added
> In model reviews.ReviewRequest:
> Field 'depends_on' has been added
> In model reviews.ReviewRequestDraft:
> Field 'depends_on' has been added
> In model accounts.Profile:
> Field 'timezone' has been added
> Field 'open_an_issue' has been added
> Field 'extra_data' has been added
> In model diffviewer.DiffSet:
> Field 'base_commit_id' has been added
> In model diffviewer.DiffSetHistory:
> Field 'last_diff_updated' has been added
> In model diffviewer.FileDiff:
> Field 'diff_hash' has been added
> Field 'parent_diff_hash' has been added
> Field 'diff64' has been added
> Field 'parent_diff64' has been added
> Field 'parent_diff' has been deleted
> Field 'diff' has been deleted
> CommandError: Your models contain changes that Django Evolution cannot 
> resolve automatically.
>
> OS-Version is:
> CentOS release 6.7 (Final)
>
> Django packages are:
> # yum list installed |grep -i django
> Django14.noarch 1.4.21-1.el6   @epel
> python-django-evolution.noarch  1:0.6.9-4.el6  @epel
> python-django-pipeline.noarch   1.2.24-2.el6   @epel
>
> Do you have any idea what's going wrong here? I'm grateful for any ideas how 
> to solve this problem.
>
> Extra question: I expected an upgrade to version 3. Instead I got 2.0.20. Why 
> is that?
>
> Kind regards,
> Martin
>

I maintain the packages for EPEL. ReviewBoard is abandoned on EPEL 6
because versions newer than 2.0 are incompatible with the set of
packages available in RHEL 6. If you want to go to 3.x and use the RPM
packages, you need to be on RHEL 7.

Otherwise, you need to go the pip route, but I'm not sure that will
work with the extremely old version of python on RHEL 6.

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Review Board Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/reviewboard/CAFAoxC%3DQ4XAZ9NOMiDSbX4CfhDpdGsTsOCNVYTmQpoV5HOqduw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Testing Needed: RBTools 1.0.2 in EPEL 7

[Stephen Gallagher]

It took a little longer than usual to get RBTools 1.0.2 out in EPEL 7
and Fedora this time around because I was paving the way to finally
get RBTools running on Python 3 in EPEL 7. As a result, this time
around I need to request more testing from people to make sure that
there are no major issues with the switch to Python 3.

The update can be found here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-2498e6070f

Within the next 24 hours, you should be able to run `yum update
--enablerepo=epel-testing RBTools` on your RHEL/CentOS 7 systems and
pick up 1.0.2. Please let me know if you encounter any issues with it.

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Review Board Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/reviewboard/CAFAoxCmRSpokfn5mfXDBO03nZcXVvp16tPDf2HAu3snnvE0TjQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Review Board 3.0.14 is out

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 6:15 AM Christian Hammond 
wrote:

> The page was written back when EPEL supported the latest versions. We
> might be better off just removing the EPEL reference here and specifying
> the yum module instructions. If there's specific instructions we should
> replace the existing stuff with, I'll make the change.
>

Well, the good news is that one RB 4.0 is out with python 3 support, I
should be able to get that running on EPEL 7, since all of the python 3
stack is in EPEL, not RHEL.

Also, once EPEL 8 is released, I’ll be able to port the Fedora module
version there as well.

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Review Board Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Review Board 3.0.14 is out

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 1:17 PM Paul Mansfield  wrote:
>
> Hi,
> the installation instructions for the free version
>
https://www.reviewboard.org/get/instructions/?org-type=business=rb=linux-rpm=free
>
> says "Review Board 3.0.14 can be installed using yum from the EPEL
repository"
>
> however, all I can see in EPEL is 2.5.17. I have tried four different
EPEL mirrors.
>
> please can someone fix the uploads to EPEL?
>


Hi Paul, I maintain the EPEL releases. I'm not sure why the doc says that
EPEL supports 3.x, but it doesn't (and cannot, right now), support 3.x due
to incompatibilities with the packages shipped by RHEL 7.x.

I just released Review Board 3.0.14 in Fedora 28, 29 and 30 (pre-release)
via modules: `yum module install reviewboard:3.0`

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Review Board Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Problems with new install on Fedora 29

[Stephen Gallagher]

Looks like p4python doesn’t support OpenSSL 1.1 yet. Try installing
openssl10-devel (you’ll have to uninstall openssl-devel first).

On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 11:57 AM Review User
 wrote:

>
> This now downloads and install cleanly! Thanks.
>
> Have problems compiling with p4python though (OpenSSL) to get a perfoce
> repo installed:
>
> Collecting p4python
>   Using cached
> https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/36/5a/0a1b192cdecd31cb8bc0d0ba39c73ffd84ce823053d0004823a1fdbe1440/p4python-2018.2.1743033.tar.gz
> Complete output from command python setup.py egg_info:
> 
> Cannot match OpenSSL Version string 'OpenSSL 1.1.1 FIPS  11 Sep 2018
> '
> 
> ***
> ** Cannot build P4Python without SSL support **
> ***
> Attempting to load API from ftp.perforce.com
> Loaded API into /tmp/p4api-2018.2.1740258
>
> 
> Command "python setup.py egg_info" failed with error code 1 in
> /tmp/pip-install-XCPcLL/p4python/
>
> I'm presuming original poster will find this too. I have done an openssl
> version and it's the correct version. I've also installed openssl-devel &
> python-devel but it flatly refuses to budge any further.
>
> perforce simply mentions
> https://www.perforce.com/perforce/doc.current/user/p4pythonnotes.txt :
>
>   SSL support
>   ---
>
>   Perforce Server 2012.1 and later supports SSL connections and the
>   C++ API has been compiled with this support. Since 2017.1 SSL support
>   is mandatory, that is, P4Python has to be compiled with valid OpenSSL
>   1.0.2 libraries.
>
>   To specify which SSL library to use, provide the --ssl [librarypath]
>   switch to the build. Without [librarypath] setup will attempt to run
>   "openssl version" to identify the location of the library path for
>   openssl and whether openssl has the appropriate version
>   (currently >= 1.0.0).
>
>   If the build process cannot find appropriate openssl binary in the
>   standard path, or the path pointed to with the --ssl switch, then
>   P4Python will not be built.
>
>
> On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 2:20:12 PM UTC, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 1:40 PM Stephen Gallagher
>>  wrote:
>>
>> > Here's the problem. Someone broke the stable updates policy and pushed
>> > a backwards-incompatible version of requests-oauthlib into Fedora 29's
>> > updates repositories. I'll stick the older version in the reviewboard
>> > module so it should override the default one. I'll get that fixed up
>> > and do a build shortly.
>> >
>> > Also, I'll update to 3.0.11 because somehow I missed that release.
>>
>> This took a little longer than expected, but I've just submitted
>> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-MODULAR-2019-ed61972699
>> as an update. It should become available in the updates-testing repos
>> for F29 within 24 hours. Thanks for reporting it!
>>
> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Review Board Community" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Review Board Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Problems with new install on Fedora 29

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 1:40 PM Stephen Gallagher
 wrote:

> Here's the problem. Someone broke the stable updates policy and pushed
> a backwards-incompatible version of requests-oauthlib into Fedora 29's
> updates repositories. I'll stick the older version in the reviewboard
> module so it should override the default one. I'll get that fixed up
> and do a build shortly.
>
> Also, I'll update to 3.0.11 because somehow I missed that release.

This took a little longer than expected, but I've just submitted
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-MODULAR-2019-ed61972699
as an update. It should become available in the updates-testing repos
for F29 within 24 hours. Thanks for reporting it!

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Review Board Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Problems with new install on Fedora 29

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 12:00 PM Stephen Gallagher
 wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 11:00 AM jeffrey.west via Review Board
> Community  wrote:
> >
> > I ran the following commands
> >
> > dnf install memcached
> > dnf module install reviewboard:3.0
> > dnf install mariadb mariadb-server
> > systemctl start mariadb
> > systemctl enable mariadb
> > mysql_secure_installation
> >
> > Created database for MySQL
> >
> > rb-site install /var/www/site
> >
> > I receive the following error
> >
> > Traceback (most recent call last):
> >   File "/usr/bin/rb-site", line 6, in 
> > from pkg_resources import load_entry_point
> >   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 
> > 3112, in 
> > @_call_aside
> >   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 
> > 3096, in _call_aside
> > f(*args, **kwargs)
> >   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 
> > 3125, in _initialize_master_working_set
> > working_set = WorkingSet._build_master()
> >   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 
> > 580, in _build_master
> > return cls._build_from_requirements(__requires__)
> >   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 
> > 593, in _build_from_requirements
> > dists = ws.resolve(reqs, Environment())
> >   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 
> > 781, in resolve
> > raise DistributionNotFound(req, requirers)
> > pkg_resources.DistributionNotFound: The 'requests_oauthlib==0.8.*,>=0.8.0' 
> > distribution was not found and is required by asana
> >
> > pip list (shows the following)
> >
> > Package  Version
> >  
...
> > requests-oauthlib1.0.0

Here's the problem. Someone broke the stable updates policy and pushed
a backwards-incompatible version of requests-oauthlib into Fedora 29's
updates repositories. I'll stick the older version in the reviewboard
module so it should override the default one. I'll get that fixed up
and do a build shortly.

Also, I'll update to 3.0.11 because somehow I missed that release.

>
>
> Hmm, looks like I may have a packaging bug there. I'll take a look at
> it after lunch. You shouldn't use pip to update those if you used RPM
> to install them. Bad Things (TM) will happen.

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Review Board Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Problems with new install on Fedora 29

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 11:00 AM jeffrey.west via Review Board
Community  wrote:
>
> I ran the following commands
>
> dnf install memcached
> dnf module install reviewboard:3.0
> dnf install mariadb mariadb-server
> systemctl start mariadb
> systemctl enable mariadb
> mysql_secure_installation
>
> Created database for MySQL
>
> rb-site install /var/www/site
>
> I receive the following error
>
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>   File "/usr/bin/rb-site", line 6, in 
> from pkg_resources import load_entry_point
>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 
> 3112, in 
> @_call_aside
>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 
> 3096, in _call_aside
> f(*args, **kwargs)
>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 
> 3125, in _initialize_master_working_set
> working_set = WorkingSet._build_master()
>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 
> 580, in _build_master
> return cls._build_from_requirements(__requires__)
>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 
> 593, in _build_from_requirements
> dists = ws.resolve(reqs, Environment())
>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 
> 781, in resolve
> raise DistributionNotFound(req, requirers)
> pkg_resources.DistributionNotFound: The 'requests_oauthlib==0.8.*,>=0.8.0' 
> distribution was not found and is required by asana
>
> pip list (shows the following)
>
> Package  Version
>  
> asana0.7.0
> asn1crypto   0.24.0
> backports.ssl-match-hostname 3.5.0.1
> bcrypt   3.1.4
> cffi 1.11.5
> chardet  3.0.4
> cryptography 2.3
> Django   1.6.11.7
> django-braces1.12.0
> django-cors-headers  1.1.0
> django-evolution 0.7.7
> django-haystack  2.4.1
> django-multiselectfield  0.1.3
> django-oauth-toolkit 0.9.0
> django-pipeline  1.6.14
> Djblets  1.0.8
> dnspython1.15.0
> docutils 0.14
> enum34   1.1.6
> feedparser   5.2.1
> futures  3.1.1
> idna 2.7
> ipaddress1.0.18
> IPy  0.81
> Markdown 2.6.11
> mercurial4.5.3
> mod-wsgi 4.6.4
> mysqlclient  1.3.12
> oauthlib 1.0.3
> olefile  0.46
> paramiko 2.4.2
> Pillow   5.3.0
> pip  18.1
> ply  3.9
> psycopg2 2.7.5
> publicsuffix 1.1.0
> pyasn1   0.3.7
> pycparser2.14
> pycrypto 2.6.1
> Pygments 2.2.0
> pymdown-extensions   3.5
> PyNaCl   1.2.1
> PySocks  1.6.8
> python-dateutil  2.7.0
> python-memcached 1.58
> python-mimeparse 1.6.0
> pytz 2018.5
> PyYAML   4.2b4
> rbintegrations   1.0
> requests 2.20.0
> requests-oauthlib1.0.0
> ReviewBoard  3.0.10
> sepolicy 1.1
> setools  4.1.1
> setuptools   40.4.3
> six  1.11.0
> urllib3  1.24.1
> Whoosh   2.7.4
>
> Anyone have any ideas?
>
> Jeff
>


Hmm, looks like I may have a packaging bug there. I'll take a look at
it after lunch. You shouldn't use pip to update those if you used RPM
to install them. Bad Things (TM) will happen.

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Review Board Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Installing ReviewBoard on FC25 x64

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 1:44 PM Review User
 wrote:
>
> Reading the docs it appears ReviewBoard is available in EPEL, or directly on 
> a Fedora server. However when I try and install ReviewBoard it says it's not 
> available. Do I need to add a repo to get it to install?
>
> [root@localhost ~]# yum install ReviewBoard
> Redirecting to '/usr/bin/dnf install ReviewBoard' (see 'man yum2dnf')
>
> Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'perforce', disabling.
> Last metadata expiration check: 0:39:14 ago on Tue Jan  8 17:34:26 2019.
> No package ReviewBoard available.
> Error: Unable to find a match.


Fedora 25 is end-of-life. To install ReviewBoard on a supported Fedora
(I recommend Fedora 29), you would do:

`dnf module install reviewboard:3.0`


I also have ReviewBoard 2.5.x packaged in the EPEL repository for RHEL/CentOS.

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Review Board Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: when install reviewboard on centOS, I get this error

[Stephen Gallagher]

Disabling SELinux is a terrible idea. Instead of disabling it, look at the
Review Board documentation which describes how to configure SELinux sanely.

See near the bottom of
https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/manual/dev/admin/installation/creating-sites/


On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 5:49 PM MoonWalker 
wrote:

> Lucky me that I found this thread. I can confirm that by disabling selinux
> on Centos 7 this issue is gone :-). You can take find out how to disable
> selinux here:
> https://www.tecmint.com/disable-selinux-temporarily-permanently-in-centos-rhel-fedora/
>
> On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 5:10:21 AM UTC+11, Chris Lang wrote:
>>
>> Hey I had this same issue and got it to work after disabling selinux. Not
>> sure that this is the best solution but the only one I could find since
>> running all of the chown lines did not fix this for me.
>>
> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Review Board Community" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Review Board Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Install of 2.5.17 on CentOS 7 - problems talking to AD server

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 5:34 PM Peter Howard  wrote:
>
> In the end it was SELinux . . . The various guides out there refer to the 
> settings that are always needed:
>
> setsebool -P httpd_can_sendmail 1 setsebool -P httpd_can_network_memcache 1
> setsebool -P httpd_can_network_connect_db 1 setsebool -P httpd_unified 1
>
> However for LDAP/AD authentication you also need
>
> setsebool -P httpd_can_connect_ldap 1
>
> Once I'd worked out that no request was actually leaving the machine it was 
> easy enough to work back to the problem.  Note to self for future reference: 
> "getsebool -a" is your friend.
>
>

Thanks for catching that, Peter. Looks like I missed that one on
https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/manual/dev/admin/installation/creating-sites/

I've just sent a review request at
https://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/10201/ to get that boolean added to
the official documentation.

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Review Board Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Reviewboard 3.0 RPM availability

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 12:18 PM  wrote:

> Hi Stephen,
>
> would you maybe have had the possibility to look into a rpm for EPEL7?
> (not sure about either grammar or EPEL naming ... i think i am asking for
> something i can install via yum :)
>
> I was just asking something in a different thread which got a nice and
> comprehensive reply by Christian Hammond ... also concerning a RB 3.x for
> yum ... quoting from (
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/reviewboard-dev/2MuigbF_-X8/wU-aPDPKBgAJ)
>
>
>> For c), I'm not sure of the current status there. This is not a Review
>> Board issue exactly, but rather a packaging issue, which I think is being
>> solved now? Basically, we need some older versions of some modules for very
>> good reasons I don't want to go into at the moment (various
>> compatibility... things...) and this makes packaging a bit harder. I think
>> that's being addressed through a new modular packaging system in Fedora.
>> Stephen can go into details more.
>>
>
> This quote is about helping Reviewboard 3.x being made available for
> Redhat rpm yum stuff ... as he mentioned that you might comment on that,
> i'd like to take the opportunity to ask you about it :)
>
> Sadly, i am just a consumer and probably not versed enough to be helpful
> concerning your plea for help in supporting this kind of backporting stuff
> that is needed to make RB 3.x available via EPEL.
>
> I tried to install RB in a newer Version  by following the instructions
> using pip but that lead to just a bunch of errors that i could not
> comprehend ... after that unsuccessful attempt i had the machine get
> reverted to previous "untouched" state and afterwards installed the rpm for
> 2.5.17 ... and now, like stated, i am thumbing my nose at all those nice
> stuff that is coming in with the 3.x releases :o)
>
>
Getting this working on RHEL/CentOS 7 is something I very much want to do,
but please understand that I do this in my spare time. I'm not paid to work
on ReviewBoard at all. I have ReviewBoard 3.0 now available in Fedora 28
and I am looking into getting it working on EPEL 7, but I won't commit to
any particular timeframe, sorry.

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Review Board Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Reviewboard 3.0 RPM availability

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 12:57 PM Stephen Gallagher <
step...@gallagherhome.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 5:10 AM <s...@m2mobi.com> wrote:
>
>> For Reviewboard 2.x there's EPEL RPM packages available, I'm just
>> wondering if Reviewboard is planning to make RPM packages available for
>> version 3.0 as well.
>>
>>
> I've been working on it, but it's difficult because EPEL 7 has a lot of
> packages that are very old and hard to update. (Also, EPEL has a policy
> against replacing any package shipped by RHEL/CentOS).
>
> However, I *do* now have packages working against Fedora 28:
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-MODULAR-2018-d31893afa3
>
> It can be installed on F28 Beta by running the command:
> `dnf install @reviewboard:3.0`
>

Oops, I should specify that this will only work from a Fedora 28 *Server
Edition* install at the moment, due to some incompatibility to updating via
PackageKit (used with Workstation).

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Review Board Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Reviewboard 3.0 RPM availability

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 5:10 AM  wrote:

> For Reviewboard 2.x there's EPEL RPM packages available, I'm just
> wondering if Reviewboard is planning to make RPM packages available for
> version 3.0 as well.
>
>
I've been working on it, but it's difficult because EPEL 7 has a lot of
packages that are very old and hard to update. (Also, EPEL has a policy
against replacing any package shipped by RHEL/CentOS).

However, I *do* now have packages working against Fedora 28:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-MODULAR-2018-d31893afa3

It can be installed on F28 Beta by running the command:
`dnf install @reviewboard:3.0`

I'm hoping to get an update out to EPEL 7 at some point, but it's slow
going and my dayjob is coming down hard on me at the moment. For the time
being, I'm only committing to maintaining updates on the 2.5.x line.

As always, anyone who would like to help me maintain these in Fedora/EPEL
should speak up.

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Review Board Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Trying to get latest ReviewBoard to work on Gentoo Linux

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 12:35 PM eric via Review Board Community <
reviewboard@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Hi Christian,
>
> Thanks so much for the response.
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 5:03:43 PM UTC-7, Christian Hammond wrote:
>>
>> It will, yes. You shouldn't need to make changes like that. This one in
>> particular will break applications that try using Djblets in various ways.
>> If this appears to fix packaging, then we really need to find out what's
>> really going on to break it in the first place.
>>
>
> I made some progress. Much closer.
>
> The Gentoo build that works with pip is mostly magic to me. I'm still
> trying to figure out the pieces.
>
> What I've figured out so far, is that as you suggest, I need to call
> setup.py (well, in a Gentoo ebuild, it is actually invoked via a wrapper
> command "esetup.py ..."). I have not yet gotten it to work, but I figured
> out several big steps forward.
>
> It would probably work better for Gentoo if setup.py develop was not a
> prerequisite to setup.py install. I see why you have it this way, but it
> makes it difficult to deal with.
>
> At the moment, I've figured out that I can patch out call the calls to
> _run_pip (which were triggering problems) - since the Gentoo environment
> already has the latest versions of those things installed.
>
> I'm tripping over the npm tool installation. While running package
> installs, Gentoo creates a sandbox, which prevents access to parts of the
> system that package install shouldn't normally need to touch. Looks like
> the Gentoo sandbox is preventing "npm install" from working. Trying to
> figure that out now.
>
> Since Gentoo mostly builds from source, I want to get it to work from the
> tar.gz distribution, but I can probably fall back to installing from the
> egg file, if I can't get this to work. Looks like the egg file has
> everything built as needed, and I wouldn't need to call "setup.py develop".
>


Eric, I'm not sure how similar Gentoo is to Fedora, but if you want to have
a look at how I'm doing the builds there, feel free to look at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ReviewBoard/blob/3.0/f/ReviewBoard.spec
 and
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-djblets/blob/1.0/f/python-djblets.spec

I'm sort of "cheating" with the NPM build stuff. What I did was
pre-download all of the NPMs ahead of time and then I have the build just
untar the directory into the right place. This avoids issues like how the
Fedora build system disallows network access (to ensure repeatable builds).
It's also worth noting that the NPM bits are needed only at build-time and
don't end up in the built package.

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Review Board Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Upgrade from 2.5.17 to 3.0.3 from EPEL repo

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 12:59 AM Dunnigan, Terrence J <
terrence.j.dunni...@boeing.com> wrote:

> What are the drawbacks of installing via easy_install on RHEL, instead of
> installing as an RPM?
>
>
The main advantages of RPMs I can think of are:

* Dependencies outside of the PyPI stack are also managed.

* Packages are signed with the Fedora Project key, so you know the contents
haven’t been modified by a third-party

* The update process matches the way you update the rest of your system.

* It can be managed by central package management tools like Satellite,
Spacewalk, Ansible and Katello

The main disadvantages are:

* The EPEL project requires that package updates go to the updates-testing
repository until they either have some positive “karma” feedback or
fourteen days have passed. So as a result, upstream updates take more time
to reach the stable EPEL repo (of course, on more than one occasion this
has meant that a regression in ReviewBoard hasn’t made it to users of the
RPMs). This obviously could be mitigated if ReviewBoard users would try the
testing packages out and report feedback, but history has shown that RB
users generally don’t bother (and then complain when a bug creeps in...)

* If ReviewBoard adds a new dependency from PyPI that isn’t available
already on EPEL, it can take from a few days to a couple weeks to get that
packaged up as RPMs, whereas easy_install can just pull it in automatically.

* When the sole maintainer (me) is busy, updates lag.




>
> If RPMs are the preferred or mandatory approach, is this something that
> BeanBag should be doing?
>
>
>

Also on my TODO list would be to get the packaging efforts moved upstream
and into whatever release tooling Bean Bag is using, but that requires even
more time than the basic packaging work I haven’t been able to get to yet.

I’ll reiterate: if anyone wants to help here, I’m happy to train you up and
take on a comaintainer (or more).

Terry
>
>
>
> *From:* reviewboard@googlegroups.com [mailto:reviewboard@googlegroups.com]
> *On Behalf Of *Stephen Gallagher
> *Sent:* Friday, March 16, 2018 9:25 AM
> *To:* reviewboard@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: Upgrade from 2.5.17 to 3.0.3 from EPEL repo
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:53 PM Chris Lang <crlan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rafal,
>
>
>
> Yes, unfortunately EPEL does not have version 3 of ReviewBoard yet.
>
> I have installed 3.0.3 successfully by running easy_install ReviewBoard
>
>
>
> Let me know if you have any issues.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> On Thursday, March 15, 2018 at 9:33:00 AM UTC-7, Rafał Cichoń wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> I have a problem with installation of a new ReviewBoard version 3.0.3
> using yum and EPEL repository on RHEL7. I noticed that ReviewBoard in EPEL
> is still 2.5.17 instead 3.0.3 as is written in documentation. Did someone
> else have similar problem?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi, I'm the EPEL maintainer (volunteer, not a Bean Bag Inc. employee). I
> have been dealing with an extremely high workload in my regular job and
> haven't had the time to go through the process of getting the new dependent
> packages for Review Board 3 into EPEL. I would very much welcome anyone
> with RPM packaging experience who would like to assist me with this (and,
> ideally, maintenance of the stack going forwards).
>
>
>
> --
>
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Review Board Community" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Review Board Community" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Review Board Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Upgrade from 2.5.17 to 3.0.3 from EPEL repo

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:53 PM Chris Lang  wrote:

> Hi Rafal,
>
> Yes, unfortunately EPEL does not have version 3 of ReviewBoard yet.
> I have installed 3.0.3 successfully by running easy_install ReviewBoard
>
> Let me know if you have any issues.
>
> Regards,
> Chris
>
>
> On Thursday, March 15, 2018 at 9:33:00 AM UTC-7, Rafał Cichoń wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have a problem with installation of a new ReviewBoard version 3.0.3
>> using yum and EPEL repository on RHEL7. I noticed that ReviewBoard in EPEL
>> is still 2.5.17 instead 3.0.3 as is written in documentation. Did someone
>> else have similar problem?
>>
>
>

Hi, I'm the EPEL maintainer (volunteer, not a Bean Bag Inc. employee). I
have been dealing with an extremely high workload in my regular job and
haven't had the time to go through the process of getting the new dependent
packages for Review Board 3 into EPEL. I would very much welcome anyone
with RPM packaging experience who would like to assist me with this (and,
ideally, maintenance of the stack going forwards).

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Review Board Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Django version mismatch installing ReviewBoard 2.0.20

[Stephen Gallagher]

Just to mention, I maintain an RPM packaged version of the 2.5 series for
RHEL and Centos in the EPEL repository which should avoid the version
compatibility question. (I don't work for Beanbag Inc., it's a volunteer
effort)

I have it on my TO DO list to get 3.x out for EPEL, but my regular job has
kept me swamped for the last couple months. Hopefully soon, though.

On Fri, Mar 9, 2018, 3:23 PM Chris Lang  wrote:

> I will take your advice and upgrade, thats great to hear that I will be
> able to install the newer version.
> I'll go ahead and try that out and then let you know how it goes.
>
> Thanks for your help Christian!
>
>
> On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 6:52:53 PM UTC-8, Christian Hammond wrote:
>
>> As long as you have a backup of the database and site directory, you have
>> nothing to worry about. It's perfectly safe to install a newer version of
>> Review Board on the target server, copy the site directory over to the same
>> path as on the old server, and then do a 'rb-site upgrade'. It will upgrade
>> the database to Review Board 3.0.
>>
>> (3.0 is the recommended version at this point.)
>>
>> If you want to use the older version on the new server for now, you can
>> locate the site-packages directory containing the old Review Board install
>> and see the versions of the packages you were using there. You can force
>> the installation of the appropriate versions with:
>>
>> sudo easy_install package_name==version
>>
>> Christian
>>
>
>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 12:30 PM, Chris Lang  wrote:
>>
>>> I'm thinking it'll be safer to move to the new machine first and then
>>> upgrade, and in case anything goes wrong with the upgrade, the team can
>>> continue using the old server.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 12:24:40 PM UTC-8, Chris Lang wrote:

 Do you think it'd be easier to upgrade first and then move to the new
 server? CentOS -> Redhat.
 I'm trying to minimize downtime since our developers use it around the
 clock.

 On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 12:17:42 PM UTC-8, Chris Lang wrote:
>
> Hey Christian,
>
> Yes, I'm moving between servers for security reasons. What version of
> ReviewBoard would you recommend upgrading to?
>
> Regards,
> Chris
>
> On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 12:08:03 PM UTC-8, Christian Hammond
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> Django 1.6.11 is correct. You likely have something installed on the
>> server that wants a newer version. It’s possible some dependency required
>> by Review Board or another of its dependencies picked it up.
>>
>> This is fixable, but first, can you tell me why you’re installing
>> 2.0.20? Are you moving between servers?  I ask because except for major
>> security issues, we’re no longer maintaining this release outside of
>> support contracts.
>>
>> Christian
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:56 Chris Lang  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm trying to install ReviewBoard 2.0.20 on RedHat 7.4 but am
>>> getting an error when running rb-site install.
>>>
>>> I initially installed ReviewBoard with easy_install
>>> ReviewBoard==2.0.20.
>>>
>>> The current errors I'm getting are:
>>>
>>>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources.py", line
>>> 626, in resolve
>>> raise DistributionNotFound(req)
>>> pkg_resources.DistributionNotFound: Django>=1.6.11,<1.7
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources.py", line
>>> 630, in resolve
>>> raise VersionConflict(dist,req) # XXX put more info here
>>> pkg_resources.VersionConflict: (Django 1.6.11
>>> (/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages), 
>>> Requirement.parse('Django>=1.8,<1.12'))
>>>
>>> I cannot get a version of Django that satisfies both. Not sure what
>>> to do from here.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> --
>>> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
>>> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
>>> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
>>> https://rbcommons.com/
>>> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
>>> ---
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Review Board Community" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>>> send an email to reviewboard...@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>> --
>> --
>> Christian Hammond
>> President/CEO of Beanbag
>> Makers of Review Board
>>
> --
>>> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
>>> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
>>> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
>>> https://rbcommons.com/
>>> Happy user? Let us know! 

Re: yum install works but website looks off

[Stephen Gallagher]

When you say you added mod_filter, do you mean you needed to install the
package or that you had changed the default Apache config at some point to
not include it and had to add it back?

I’m trying to figure out if there is a packaging bug and I need to add a
dependency on mod_filter somewhere.
On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 10:51 AM Koert Kuipers  wrote:

> The logs showed errors related to AddOutputFilterByType in .htaccess
>
> I added mod_filter to apache and now everything works. Thanks
>
>
> On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 5:30:07 AM UTC-5, Christian Hammond wrote:
>
>> They definitely should not trigger a HTTP 500 error. Apache, not Review
>> Board, is handling all requests under /static/. There should be some
>> information in the Apache error log stating what’s wrong.
>>
>> Christian
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 21:40 Koert Kuipers  wrote:
>>
>>> So /static maps to /var/www/reviewboard/htdocs/static if i understand it
>>> correctly.
>>>
>>> I can find these files:
>>> /var/www/reviewboard/htdocs/static/rb/css/common.min.290ac1b4576d.css
>>>
>>> /var/www/reviewboard/htdocs/static/djblets/css/datagrid.min.c24e89898f28.css
>>> /var/www/reviewboard/htdocs/static/rb/images/logo.cc81d3ae01b2.png
>>>
>>> This is my reviewboard.conf for httpd:
>>>
>>> more /etc/httpd/sites-enabled/reviewboard.conf
>>> 
>>> ServerName localhost
>>> DocumentRoot "/var/www/reviewboard/htdocs"
>>>
>>> # Error handlers
>>> ErrorDocument 500 /errordocs/500.html
>>>
>>> WSGIPassAuthorization On
>>> WSGIScriptAlias "/" "/var/www/reviewboard/htdocs/reviewboard.wsgi/"
>>>
>>> 
>>> AllowOverride All
>>> Options -Indexes +FollowSymLinks
>>> Require all granted
>>> 
>>>
>>> # Prevent the server from processing or allowing the rendering of
>>> # certain file types.
>>> 
>>> SetHandler None
>>> Options None
>>>
>>> AddType text/plain .html .htm .shtml .php .php3 .php4 .php5
>>> .phps .asp
>>> AddType text/plain .pl .py .fcgi .cgi .phtml .phtm .pht .jsp .sh
>>> .rb
>>>
>>> 
>>> php_flag engine off
>>> 
>>>
>>> # Force all uploaded media files to download.
>>> 
>>> Header set Content-Disposition "attachment"
>>> 
>>> 
>>>
>>> # Alias static media requests to filesystem
>>> Alias /media "/var/www/reviewboard/htdocs/media"
>>> Alias /static "/var/www/reviewboard/htdocs/static"
>>> Alias /errordocs "/var/www/reviewboard/htdocs/errordocs"
>>> Alias /favicon.ico
>>> "/var/www/reviewboard/htdocs/static/rb/images/favicon.png"
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 12:33:28 AM UTC-5, Koert Kuipers wrote:

 I see links like:

 >>> type="text/css" />

 >>> rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" />

 And for an image:

 >>> data-at2x="/static/rb/images/l...@2x.4e25cc3cacef.png" alt="" border="0" 
 width="60" height="57" />

 It seems all the links for /static do not work, when i click on them i get 
 500 errors.

 Other links seem OK.

 Best, Koert

 On Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 4:39:03 PM UTC-5, Christian Hammond
 wrote:
>
> Can you view the source for a broken page and look for any lines
> saying:
>
> 
>
> Paste a few of those here, and just generally see if the URL makes
> sense to you.
>
> Christian
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 13:04 Koert Kuipers  wrote:
>
>> Hi Christian,
>> This is actually a fresh install on a clean VM, not an upgrade.
>> However i did stop services, run "sb-site upgrade", and started
>> services again but it still looks the same.
>> Best, Koert
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 5:09:50 AM UTC-5, Christian Hammond
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Koert,
>>>
>>> Did you run 'rb-site upgrade' on the site directory after you
>>> upgraded? It sounds like the CSS and JavaScript aren't set up correctly.
>>>
>>> Christian
>>>
>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 9:39 PM, Koert Kuipers 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>> I have reviewboard 2.0.22 up and running by installing python
 packages directly. We use it daily and its great.

 Today i tried to install ReviewBoard with yum instead from EPEL on
 Centos 7. it seems straightforward and easy to install. The installed
 version is ReviewBoard 2.5.16-1.el7

 I am using httpd 2.4 with wsgi as my webserver and mysql 5.6 for
 database.

 However when i pull it up in Firefox the result isnt great. See
 attached. Basically it looks like a website from the time when i used
 mosaic. Its functioning though, i can log in as admin. Any idea what i 
 did
 wrong?

 Thanks! Koert

 --

Re: How to update apache inside of review board?

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 1:54 PM David Trowbridge  wrote:

> Can you clarify what you mean by "update apache"?
>
>
> -David
>
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:49 AM Not Saying  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 6:50:52 AM UTC-7, Not Saying wrote:
>>>
>>> Is there a procedure to update apache inside of review board?   Is so
>>> what is it?
>>>
>>>
Donovan, you will need to explain how you installed Review Board. Did you
install it manually on a Linux system (if so, what distribution and
version)? Did you deploy it from a docker container? Bitnami?

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Index failure after upgrade to ReviewBoard 2.5.16

[Stephen Gallagher]

Ok, I just wanted to rule out an easy solution.
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 5:47 AM 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard <
reviewboard@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Just to add, the haystack version shown in the reviewboard shell is
> looking better now though.
>
> >>> import reviewboard
> >>> print reviewboard.VERSION
> (2, 5, 16, 0, u'final', 0, True)
> >>> print reviewboard.__file__
> /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/__init__.pyc
> >>> import haystack
> >>> print haystack.__version__
> (2, 4, 1)
> >>> print haystack.__file__
> /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/__init__.pyc
>
>
> Thanks
> Rob
>
> On Thursday, 12 October 2017 10:41:59 UTC+1, Rob Backhurst wrote:
>>
>> Hi Stephen,
>>
>> I've installed that on our test system and re-run the index -
>> unfortunately the same problem.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Rob
>>
>> On Wednesday, 11 October 2017 19:21:22 UTC+1, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:40 AM 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard <
>>> revie...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Christian,
>>>>
>>>> Ok, lets hope this can tell you something useful...
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>
>>> Rob, I just packaged up Haystack 2.4.1 (and did rudimentary testing to
>>> see that ReviewBoard still works). Would you mind installing the RPM at
>>> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-django-haystack-2.4.1-1.el7 ,
>>> restarting httpd and seeing if that fixes things?
>>>
>>> I'd like to see if this issue might just already be fixed in the newer
>>> release.
>>>
>> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "reviewboard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Index failure after upgrade to ReviewBoard 2.5.16

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:40 AM 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard <
reviewboard@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Hi Christian,
>
> Ok, lets hope this can tell you something useful...
>
> 

Rob, I just packaged up Haystack 2.4.1 (and did rudimentary testing to see
that ReviewBoard still works). Would you mind installing the RPM at
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-django-haystack-2.4.1-1.el7 ,
restarting httpd and seeing if that fixes things?

I'd like to see if this issue might just already be fixed in the newer
release.

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Index failure after upgrade to ReviewBoard 2.5.16

[Stephen Gallagher]

Rob, did you install ReviewBoard using pip or using the EPEL 7 RPM?

>From above, it looks like you may have two copies of Haystack on your
system, one installed via RPM and the other possibly installed by
pip/easy_install. You will need to clear out the 2.1.1dev version.
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 1:32 PM Christian Hammond 
wrote:

> Hi Rob,
>
> It was a couple e-mails ago, but can you actually just attach /
> usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py? I'll see if that
> logic differs from what is in 2.3.1.
>
> Christian
>
> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 12:25 AM, 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard <
> reviewboard@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> Sorry, which one line?
>>
>> On Friday, 6 October 2017 00:59:12 UTC+1, Christian Hammond wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Rob,
>>>
>>> That's the version listed in the source code for the version of Haystack
>>> being run. Not sure if that indicates a packaging problem or what, but it's
>>> very strange.
>>>
>>> Could you show me that one line in fields.py?
>>>
>>> Christian
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 13:22 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard <
>>> revie...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>
 Hi Christian,

 We deinately only have version 2.3.1 installed.

 python-django-haystack 2.3.1-1.el7

 Why would it think we're using 2.1.1 dev? Can we force it to look in
 the correct place?

 Thanks
 Rob

 On Tuesday, 3 October 2017 09:12:26 UTC+1, Rob Backhurst wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I upgraded our ReviewBoard system from 2.5.10 to 2.5.16 - since then,
> indexing doesn't seem to complete.
> The index starts OK, but after a while stops with this error...
>
> ERROR:root:Error updating reviews using default
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>   File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
> line 189, in handle_label
> self.update_backend(label, using)
>   File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
> line 234, in update_backend
> do_update(backend, index, qs, start, end, total, self.verbosity)
>   File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
> line 89, in do_update
> backend.update(index, current_qs)
>   File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/backends/whoosh_backend.py",
> line 191, in update
> doc = index.full_prepare(obj)
>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/indexes.py", line
> 207, in full_prepare
> self.prepared_data = self.prepare(obj)
>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/indexes.py", line
> 198, in prepare
> self.prepared_data[field.index_fieldname] = field.prepare(obj)
>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line
> 159, in prepare
> return self.convert(super(CharField, self).prepare(obj))
>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 87,
> in prepare
> raise SearchFieldError("The model '%s' does not have a model_attr
> '%s'." % (repr(obj), attr))
> SearchFieldError: The model '' does
> not have a model_attr 'commit'.
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>   File "/usr/bin/rb-site", line 9, in 
> load_entry_point('ReviewBoard==2.5.16', 'console_scripts',
> 'rb-site')()
>   File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py", line
> 1964, in main
> command.run()
>   File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py", line
> 1884, in run
> site.run_manage_command(args[0], args[1:])
>   File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py", line 
> 712,
> in run_manage_command
> execute_from_command_line([__file__, cmd] + params)
>   File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/__init__.py", 
> line
> 399, in execute_from_command_line
> utility.execute()
>   File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/__init__.py", 
> line
> 392, in execute
> self.fetch_command(subcommand).run_from_argv(self.argv)
>   File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/base.py", line
> 242, in run_from_argv
> self.execute(*args, **options.__dict__)
>   File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/base.py", line
> 285, in execute
> output = self.handle(*args, **options)
>   File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/reviews/management/commands/index.py",
> line 21, in handle
> call_command('update_index')
>   File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/__init__.py", 
> line
> 159, in call_command
> return klass.execute(*args, **defaults)
>   File
> 

Re: Invalid HTTP_HOST header Emails

[Stephen Wanhella]

One solution, if anybody else happens to find this thread and just wants 
the emails to stop, is to add the ip address to the list of allowed hosts.
I did this in 
/opt/bitnami/apps/reviewboard/htdocs/rb-sites/reviewboard/conf/settings_local.py.
You can add the ip address to the ALLOWED_HOSTS array.

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 7:51:55 AM UTC-8, Mike Baker wrote:
>
> Mapped the Apache logs. Seems it's just random servers pinging the IP and 
> snooping around for vulnerabilities. 
> Some map to these guys: http://74.82.47.3/
> The other brings up a variety of results in Google 
> https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=ssl#safe=off=199.115.117.88
>
> In any case, just seems like random bot traffic. I'll look into either 
> outright rejecting web traffic targeted directly at the server's IP or 
> redirecting them with mod_rewrite.
>
> Thanks for the help guys. I'll report back when I have a solution so 
> anyone else having this issue can solve it too. I'm betting most people 
> running Review Board on an EC2 instance see this.
>
> On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 8:33:01 PM UTC-5, Mike Baker wrote:
>>
>> I'll have to look more closely at the Apache logs to figure out if there 
>> is a mapping. To be honest, I don't really care if the site doesn't load 
>> from the direct IP. I just don't want to get the emails all the time :P
>>
>> I'll take a closer look at the logs tomorrow.
>> The mod_rewrite idea is a good one. That will at least stop the emails. I 
>> need to setup the forced rewrite to https for insecure connections anyway 
>> so I'll just add that to the list.
>>
>> Thanks for the quick response and ideas guys!
>>
>> On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 7:47:11 PM UTC-5, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>>>
>>> Another alternative would be to set up mod_rewrite so that requests to 
>>> the IP address are externally redirected to the hostname (which is probably 
>>> a necessity if you're using HTTPS anyhow).
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 5:35 PM Christian Hammond <chri...@beanbaginc.com> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Mike,
>>>>
>>>> We don't (currently) use Django's logging settings, so that can't be 
>>>> disabled the same way. There might be a way to turn off the behavior in a 
>>>> more specific way, but I don't know it (I haven't seen this come up yet so 
>>>> I haven't looked into it).
>>>>
>>>> Is there anything in your Apache logs that correspond to these access 
>>>> times that can help point you to what's accessing the server with that IP?
>>>>
>>>> Alternatively, you could add the IP to ALLOWED_HOSTS.
>>>>
>>>> Christian
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Christian Hammond - chri...@beanbaginc.com
>>>> Review Board - https://www.reviewboard.org
>>>> Beanbag, Inc. - https://www.beanbaginc.com
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Mike Baker <
>>>> mba...@karmaninteractive.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I've been getting the odd email from my Review Board install.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Subject:*
>>>>> [Review Board] ERROR: Invalid HTTP_HOST header: ''.You may 
>>>>> need to add u'' to ALLOWED_HOSTS.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Body:*
>>>>> No stack trace available
>>>>>
>>>>> Request repr() unavailable.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In this example  is my servers IP address.
>>>>>
>>>>> The email gets sent at really odd and infrequent intervals (1-3 times 
>>>>> per day). A little Googling around seems to indicate the issue is that 
>>>>> someone (or something) is trying to access my server directly by IP 
>>>>> rather 
>>>>> than using the domain name(s).
>>>>>
>>>>> Looking at this SO post it seems I can disable the logging in the 
>>>>> Django settings but I'm usure of where those are in the RB installation. 
>>>>> Can anyone point me in the right direction?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/22416027/invalid-http-host-header-in-django-1-6-2
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
>>>>> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
>>>>> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
>>>>> https://rbcommons.com/
>>>>> Happy user? Let 

Re: RB hangs in Pygments while sending an email

[Stephen Gallagher]

Alexey: Good news! There's a new version of ReviewBoard in EPEL-testing
right now that uses Pygments 2.2. Let me know if that fixes your issue,
please.
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 8:32 AM Stephen Gallagher <step...@gallagherhome.com>
wrote:

> Hmm, this might be a problem unique to the EPEL packages. We are stuck on
> Pygments 1.4 while ReviewBoard recommends 1.6+ IIRC. I may have to look at
> packaging an alternate version for use with RB.
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:46 PM Alexey Neyman <alexey.ney...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> We've seen a rather odd behavior of RB today. Once a certain text was
>> inserted inside "verbatim" markdown block (four backticks before and
>> after), the Apache process running ReviewBoard became a CPU hog, consuming
>> 100% of CPU time. Interestingly, the "Description" displayed the text fine,
>> but no email notification has been sent.
>>
>> The offending text is in the attached file (1.txt). A colleague suggested
>> to send SIGABRT to that Apache process, which yielded the the stacktrace in
>> the Apache's logs, also attached as stacktrace.txt
>>
>> ReviewBoard and Pygments both installed from RPMs:
>>
>> ReviewBoard-2.5.7-1.el7.noarch
>> python-pygments-1.4-9.el7.noarch
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alexey.
>>
>> --
>> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
>> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
>> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
>> https://rbcommons.com/
>> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "reviewboard" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: New Review Board security releases

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 4:58 PM Christian Hammond 
wrote:

> Hey everyone,
>
> We've just released Review Board 2.0.30 and 2.5.14, which contain some
> important security fixes. We recommend upgrading ASAP to stay secure.
> There's a fix for a XSS vulnerability, allowing a user to craft a malicious
> URL that can execute JavaScript on a user's behalf, and a fix for a data
> leak in the API that could allow some information on otherwise private
> review requests to be exposed. Both were found in-house (by us and through
> a partner).
>
> There are also a handful of bug fixes and a couple of new features in
> 2.5.14 (commit ID search indexing and Markdown table support).
>
> See the announcement for more details:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/news/2017/08/01/new-review-board-2-0-30-and-2-5-14-security-bug-fix-releases/
>
>
For users of RHEL 7, CentOS 7 and derivatives:

https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-816da4b59a is on
its way to the EPEL 7 testing repository. You can update to it with `yum
update ReviewBoard --enablerepo=epel-testing`.

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Q

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 4:31 PM Christian Hammond 
wrote:

> Hi Florian,
>
> This may be caused by SELinux. I know the RPMs for stable releases contain
> SELinux rules for this, and maybe those can be extracted and used here. (I
> want to start shipping those ourselves as well.)
>
>
Sorry, I just happened to notice that you also mentioned "I want to start
shipping those ourselves as well". Unfortunately, SELinux rules are
*really* complicated and for most applications it would be nearly
impossible to ship them independently. That's why we (Fedora) bundle
everything together into the selinux-policy package.

The way SELinux rules work is through a combination of label-based
restrictions and *transitions*. In other words, we assign every file,
process and action on the system a label of some kind and then we define a
set of transition rules that determines what files that processes with that
label have permission to access. We also add "booleans" that allow changing
wide swaths of behavior for specific common needs.

So, for example, the default SELinux policy on HTTPD allows Apache to
access only the files located in /var/www/html. So even if someone was to
exploit the Apache server, the kernel would prevent them from using that to
attack more of the system.

However, this is not particularly useful when setting up a modern
application; we want to be able to access a database and use memcache for
faster performance. Since these are common activities, SELinux booleans
exist that relax the restrictions so that the application is allowed to do
this. It *does* mean that a successful attack against Apache could also be
used as a jumping-off point to attack those other services, but that's a
reasonable and calculated risk.

The way these transitions are written is very complicated and in many cases
cannot be generalized because it will depend on what labels the
distribution you're using has settled on for some other actions. As an
example, I could set up a rule that allows the "httpd_t" label to
transition to "network_db_t" to access PostgreSQL and that would work
fine... unless the distro you are running on arbitrarily decided that they
were going to call it "apache_httpd_t" instead... Your rules would still
exist, but they wouldn't be used by the system because it wouldn't match
the requests being made. This is an overly-simplified example. You should
see how complicated it gets when dealing with desktop applications!

tl;dr: If you discover any places where SELinux is getting in the way,
please report it to the SELinux maintainers of whichever distribution is
experiencing the issue. On Fedora, you can either let me know or file a bug
against the selinux-policy package at https://bugzilla.redhat.com

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Review board 3 cannot be started on CentOS 7

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 4:31 PM Christian Hammond 
wrote:

> Hi Florian,
>
> This may be caused by SELinux. I know the RPMs for stable releases contain
> SELinux rules for this, and maybe those can be extracted and used here. (I
> want to start shipping those ourselves as well.)
>
> Permissions otherwise look fine, so SELinux would be my guess. You should
> also see the same problem with 2.5.x.
>
>
For the record, the SELinux rules aren't contained in the Review Board
packages; they're upstreamed into the distribution selinux-policy package.
You can tell if SELinux is the cause by doing `setenforce 0` as the root
user, which will disable SELinux enforcement. If the problem goes away,
SELinux was the cause.

If that is the case,  make sure you follow all the SELinux instructions at
https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/manual/dev/admin/installation/creating-sites/
because
you may need to set some SELinux booleans.

Make sure to do `setenforce 1` after this so you get SELinux protections
restored. They're really helpful for avoiding attacks.

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: RB hangs in Pygments while sending an email

[Stephen Gallagher]

Hmm, this might be a problem unique to the EPEL packages. We are stuck on
Pygments 1.4 while ReviewBoard recommends 1.6+ IIRC. I may have to look at
packaging an alternate version for use with RB.
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:46 PM Alexey Neyman 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> We've seen a rather odd behavior of RB today. Once a certain text was
> inserted inside "verbatim" markdown block (four backticks before and
> after), the Apache process running ReviewBoard became a CPU hog, consuming
> 100% of CPU time. Interestingly, the "Description" displayed the text fine,
> but no email notification has been sent.
>
> The offending text is in the attached file (1.txt). A colleague suggested
> to send SIGABRT to that Apache process, which yielded the the stacktrace in
> the Apache's logs, also attached as stacktrace.txt
>
> ReviewBoard and Pygments both installed from RPMs:
>
> ReviewBoard-2.5.7-1.el7.noarch
> python-pygments-1.4-9.el7.noarch
>
> Regards,
> Alexey.
>
> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "reviewboard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re:

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 7:51 AM Shilpa R  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have python version 2.7 on the same Centos machine 5.x :-
>
>  python -V
> Python 2.7.10
>
> is it not compatible with RBTools?
>
>
In that case, I advise you to do:

`yum remove RBTools`
followed by
`pip install RBTools`

That *should* get you what you need. Though I can't promise that it will
work perfectly, since as I mentioned, CentOS 5 is past its end-of-life.
(Which means that if any of the dependencies like pysvn are too old, you
may be out of luck)

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: rbt post for Git yields "The file was not found in the repository. (HTTP 400, API Error 207)"

[Stephen Gallagher]

Given that you have 2.5.11, which is the version that was stable repo for
EPEL until today, I am guessing you have the RPMs and suspect you will want
to do "yum update ReviewBoard --enablerepo=updates-testing" and get a copy
of 2.5.13.1

(Note it just went into the EPEL testing repo today, so it might take up to
24 hours to hit your closest mirror)
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 3:36 PM Christian Hammond 
wrote:

> Hi Nick,
>
> Most likely you installed the previous version using a different
> installation method (pip or yum) than you used this time (easy_install?)
> and the old package is taking precedence. Check
> /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ for all ReviewBoard* entries and show me
> what you've found.
>
> Christian
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 08:15 Nick Pruehs 
> wrote:
>
>> Hey Christian!
>>
>> Thanks for the advice. I've followed the instructions at
>>
>>
>>-
>>
>> https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/manual/dev/admin/upgrading/upgrading-reviewboard/
>>-
>>
>> https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/manual/dev/admin/upgrading/upgrading-sites/
>>
>> The application upgrade seems to be successful, however, the site update
>> not. The console output is as follows:
>>
>> root@tegan:/var/www# rb-site upgrade /var/www/reviewboard
>> Rebuilding directory structure
>> Upgrading site settings_local.py
>> Updating database. This may take a while.
>> The log output below, including warnings and errors,
>> can be ignored unless upgrade fails.
>> --  --
>> Creating tables ...
>> Installing custom SQL ...
>> Installing indexes ...
>> Installed 0 object(s) from 0 fixture(s)
>> No evolution required.
>> ---  ---
>> Resetting in-database caches.
>> Upgrade complete!
>>
>> However, after restarting both Apache and Memcached, we're still facing
>> the required update message:
>>
>>
>> Manual server updates required
>>
>> A recent upgrade requires manual updates to be made on this server. After
>> these changes are made, you should restart your web server.
>>
>> If you have any questions or problems, please contact us on our *mailing
>> list* .
>> Review Board version mismatch
>>
>> The version of Review Board running does not match the version the site
>> was last upgraded to. You are running *2.5.11* and the site was last
>> upgraded to *2.5.13.1*.
>>
>> Please upgrade your site to fix this by running:
>>
>> $ rb-site upgrade /var/www/reviewboard
>>
>>
>>
>> Are we still missing something?
>>
>> Warm regards,
>> Nick
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 12:47:22 PM UTC+2, Christian Hammond wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Nick,
>>>
>>> Your original configuration was correct (and required -- the second one
>>> won't work).
>>>
>>> The problem you're hitting was fixed in Review Board 2.0.12. The 2.0.11
>>> release, which was very short-lived, regressed new configs for GitHub. I'd
>>> strongly recommend getting the very latest though (2.0.13.1), as it
>>> contains security fixes.
>>>
>>> Christian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 03:25 Nick Pruehs  wrote:
>>>
>> Hi all,

 we are trying to generate a review request for a public Git repository:

 https://github.com/DaedalicEntertainment/qt-coding-conventions

 Our first try was to setup the repository in Reviewboard 2.5.11 as
 follows:

- Name: Qt Coding Conventions
- Hosting Service: GitHub
- Account username: DaedalicEntertainment
- Account password: ***
- Repository type: Git
- Repository plan: Public
- Repository name: qt-coding-conventions
- Use hosting service's bug tracker: true
- Publicly accessible: true

 This yields the following error:

 *Unknown error when linking the account: class HTTPBasicAuthHandler has
 no attribute 'capitalize'. The details of the failure are in the Review
 Board log file.*

 Assuming that the GitHub API might have changed, we changed the
 configuration as follows:

- Name: Qt Coding Conventions
- Hosting Service: (None - Custom Repository)
- Repository type: Git
- Path:
https://github.com/DaedalicEntertainment/qt-coding-conventions.git
- Raw file URL mask:

 https://raw.githubusercontent.com/DaedalicEntertainment/qt-coding-conventions/
/
- Username: DaedalicEntertainment
- Password: ***
- Bug tracker type: (Custom Bug Tracker)
- Bug tracker URL: http://issuetracker.daedalic.de/view.php?id=%s

 Then, we've locally switched the branch to
 https://github.com/DaedalicEntertainment/qt-coding-conventions/tree/hotfix/auto-pointer-symbol-inconsistency
 and opened a command-line window for using rbt. After successful login,
 we've created a .reviewboardrc file with the following contents:

 

Re:

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 2:40 AM Shilpa R  wrote:

> Ok.
>
> Actually I have machines which are Centos 5/6/7. And I will need Centos 5
> support also for posting review requests on Review board Server.
>
> So on Centos 6 I have successfully connected to ReviewBoard Server with
> the help of 0.7 version RBTools.
>
> But whereas on Centos 5 I have installed 0.5 version RBTools and I am
> facing the below issue :-
>
> *rbt post -d*
> ERROR:root:Could not load SCM Client "svn": No module named etree
> ERROR:root:Could not load SCM Client "git": No module named etree
> ERROR:root:Could not load SCM Client "mercurial": No module named etree
> DEBUG:root:Checking for a ClearCase repository...
> DEBUG:root:Checking for a Bazaar repository...
> DEBUG:root:Checking for a CVS repository...
> DEBUG:root:Checking for a Perforce repository...
> DEBUG:root:Checking for a Plastic repository...
> ERROR:root:No supported repository could be accessed at the supplied url.
>
> The configuration are same as Centos 6 which executes correctly. I think
> on Centos 5 it is unable to connect to the repository.
>
> The *.reviewboardrc* configurations are:-
>
> REVIEWBOARD_URL = "172.16.107.138"
> REPOSITORY = "XXX"
>
>
> What might be  the issue?
>
> Regards
> Shilpa
>
>

If you really must run RBTools on a CentOS 5 host, your best bet would be
to:
1) Remove the RBTools RPM (`yum remove RBTools`)
2) Install the 'python26' package from EPEL 5 (`yum install python26`)

Then you'll need to install 'pip' from PyPI for python 2.6 and then `pip
install RBTools`

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Unable to Connect to GIT Repository configured in Review Board

[Stephen Gallagher]

If that's the case, I suspect you were uploading a diff that included
dependencies on other patches that weren't in the public git tree to which
ReviewBoard is connected.

Instead of using the diff upload on the web UI, try using `rbt post` from
the RBTools package. It should be able to automatically detect the
necessary parent diff and send that along as well.

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 8:39 AM Shilpa R <shilpa@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Stephen,
>
> The above issue I have mentioned is not occuring for all the files. Only
> some files are throwing this diff error.
>
> If Repo configuration was incorrect then this error will be thrown
> everytime when I use rbt post command. But it is not happening like that.
>
> Regards
> Shilpa
>
> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "reviewboard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Unable to Connect to GIT Repository configured in Review Board

[Stephen Gallagher]

This sounds like you didn't set up the repo configuration correctly. I'll
pass you back to the developers.

Also, it might not be a bad idea to consider purchasing a support contract
from BeanBag, Inc. and having them help you get up and running. That's what
they're here for!
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 3:34 AM Shilpa R <shilpa@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Stephen. Your inputs is helping me to proceed.
> And Yes, after stopping firewall service I am enable to open the Review
> Board site on Web Browser.
>
> Now I am enable to generate reviews on Review Board.
>
> *But for some commits in GIT I face the following issue :-*
>
> Username: XXX
>
> Please log in to the Review Board server at 172.16.107.138.
> Password:
> ERROR: Error uploading diff
>
>
> One or more fields had errors (HTTP 400, API Error 105)
>
> path: error: unable to find 4627685731d390977bc18fc7703214d7f6823fd7
> fatal: git cat-file 4627685731d390977bc18fc7703214d7f6823fd7: bad file
>
>
> Your review request still exists, but the diff is not attached.
>
> http://172.16.107.138/r/11/
>
>
> FYI we are managing our Mirror Repo on server machine which is configured
> in review board server in Repository configuration tab.
>
> Regards
> Shilpa
>
> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "reviewboard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re:

[Stephen Gallagher]

RHEL 5 (and therefore CentOS 5) is past end-of-life. I am no longer
supporting its RPMs and I advise you to migrate away from it since it will
not be receiving security updates anymore.

That said, it never got upgraded beyond RBTools 0.5 because it's version of
Python was too old to support 0.6+
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 5:25 AM Shilpa R <shilpa@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Stephen,
>
> Can we upgrade the RBTools from 0.5 version to 0.7 version on Centos 5
> Linux machine as I am not getting any 0.7 RBtool RPM on internet.
>
> Is this the limitation of Centos 5.?
>
> Regards
> Shilpa
>
> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "reviewboard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re:

[Stephen Gallagher]

In general, I would recommend installing the EPEL repository from
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL#How_can_I_use_these_extra_packages.3F

After that, you should be able to 'yum install ReviewBoard' and it will
pull in all the dependencies.

That said, the package you are likely missing is MySQL-python
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 2:19 AM Shilpa R <shilpa@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Stephen,
>
> I have installed the Review Board(2.5 Version) RPM for Centos 7 from the
> below website :-
>
>
> https://www.rpmfind.net/linux/rpm2html/search.php?query=ReviewBoard=Search+...==
>
>
> rb-site install /var/www/reviews.example.com
>
>
> * Welcome to the Review Board site installation wizard
>
> This will prepare a Review Board site installation in:
>
> /var/www/reviews.example.com
>
> We need to know a few things before we can prepare your site for
> installation. This will only take a few minutes.
>
>
> * Make sure you have the modules you need
>
>* Depending on your installation, you may need certain Python*
> *modules and servers that are missing.*
>
> If you need support for any of the following, you will need to
> install the necessary modules and restart the install.
>
> Databases (optional):
> * MySQL (MySQLdb)
> * PostgreSQL (psycopg2)
>
> ** What database type will you be using?*
>
> You can type either the name or the number from the list below.
>
> (1) sqlite3
> Database Type: 1
>
> As I have highlighted the issue, I think because of this it is not giving
> me the option of MySQL and  postgresql.
>
> How will I get to know which dependencies are not installed yet ?
>
> Regards
> Shilpa
>
>
> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "reviewboard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Unable to Connect to GIT Repository configured in Review Board

[Stephen Gallagher]

Or of course that you didn't follow the directions on the master
documentation branch for configuring SELinux.
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 6:25 AM Stephen Gallagher <step...@gallagherhome.com>
wrote:

> Can you *browse* to Review Board at that address? It's entirely possible
> that your firewall is not set up to permit access on port 80.
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 6:23 AM Shilpa R <shilpa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Please help !!! I am stuck at this point... I am unable to connect to
>> ReviewBoard server.
>>
>> *In reviewboard.rc file I have given the following input :-*
>> REVIEWBOARD_URL = "http://172.16.107.138/;   -- Server IP
>> where review board is there
>> REPOSITORY = "lte_epc" --- Repository name which
>> is configured in Review board
>>
>>
>> --
>> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
>> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
>> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
>> https://rbcommons.com/
>> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "reviewboard" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Unable to Connect to GIT Repository configured in Review Board

[Stephen Gallagher]

Can you *browse* to Review Board at that address? It's entirely possible
that your firewall is not set up to permit access on port 80.
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 6:23 AM Shilpa R  wrote:

> Please help !!! I am stuck at this point... I am unable to connect to
> ReviewBoard server.
>
> *In reviewboard.rc file I have given the following input :-*
> REVIEWBOARD_URL = "http://172.16.107.138/;   -- Server IP
> where review board is there
> REPOSITORY = "lte_epc" --- Repository name which
> is configured in Review board
>
>
> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "reviewboard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re:

[Stephen Gallagher]

I just double-checked that the ReviewBoard RPM does indeed pull in
MySQL-python, so it has everything it needs to connect to MySQL. What
version of Review Board did you install?
On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 7:02 AM Stephen Gallagher <step...@gallagherhome.com>
wrote:

> That's odd... it should definitely include the options for MySQL and
> PostgreSQL. I'm not sure why it wouldn't be...
> On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 5:17 AM Shilpa R <shilpa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> While installing review board version 2.5 on Centos 7 linux machine, I am
>> only getting one option to select the database.
>>
>> After entering command "rb-site install /var/www/www.reviewboard.com" :-
>>
>> ** What database type will you be using?*
>>
>> You can type either the name or the number from the list below.
>>
>> (1) sqlite3
>> Database Type: 1
>>
>>
>> Whereas, while installing 1.7 Version Review Board on Centos 6 machine I
>> was given 3 options for database selection :-
>>
>> ** What database type will you be using?*
>>
>> You can type either the name or the number from the list below.
>>
>> (1) mysql
>> (2) postgresql
>> (3) sqlite3 (not supported for production use)
>>
>> Database Type: 1
>>
>>
>> So Cant I use mysql instead of SQLite? As I am comfortable with Mysql.
>> And is it necessary to use SQLite?
>>
>> Regards
>> Shilpa
>>
>> --
>> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
>> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
>> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
>> https://rbcommons.com/
>> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "reviewboard" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re:

[Stephen Gallagher]

That's odd... it should definitely include the options for MySQL and
PostgreSQL. I'm not sure why it wouldn't be...
On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 5:17 AM Shilpa R  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> While installing review board version 2.5 on Centos 7 linux machine, I am
> only getting one option to select the database.
>
> After entering command "rb-site install /var/www/www.reviewboard.com" :-
>
> ** What database type will you be using?*
>
> You can type either the name or the number from the list below.
>
> (1) sqlite3
> Database Type: 1
>
>
> Whereas, while installing 1.7 Version Review Board on Centos 6 machine I
> was given 3 options for database selection :-
>
> ** What database type will you be using?*
>
> You can type either the name or the number from the list below.
>
> (1) mysql
> (2) postgresql
> (3) sqlite3 (not supported for production use)
>
> Database Type: 1
>
>
> So Cant I use mysql instead of SQLite? As I am comfortable with Mysql.
> And is it necessary to use SQLite?
>
> Regards
> Shilpa
>
> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "reviewboard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Unable to Connect to GIT Repository configured in Review Board

[Stephen Gallagher]

OK, I've now gotten python-tqdm packaged up for EPEL 6 and it's attached to
the update errata that includes RBTools 0.7.10 [1]

It usually takes 24-48 hours for updates errata to get out to the mirrors,
but you can also download the RPM packages directly from the build system
(click on the "builds" tab on that link and download them manually). Sorry
for the trouble. If this works for you, please provide feedback.

[1] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-a281c013fd

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 9:23 AM Stephen Gallagher <step...@gallagherhome.com>
wrote:

> Sorry, that bug is my fault. I didn't realize python-tqdm wasn't available
> on RHEL/CentOS 6 yet. I need to package that up and get an update out. I've
> been kind of lazy about that. My apologies. I'll work on it now and
> hopefully it should be in the epel-testing repo by Monday.
>
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 8:09 AM Shilpa R <shilpa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks for the input.
>>
>> Now I have installed RBTools 0.7 on Centos 6 machine.
>> And when I am running rbt post command , following error is showing :-
>>
>> rbt post
>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>>   File "/usr/bin/rbt", line 5, in 
>> from pkg_resources import load_entry_point
>>   File "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/pkg_resources.py", line 2655, in
>> 
>> working_set.require(__requires__)
>>   File "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/pkg_resources.py", line 648, in
>> require
>> needed = self.resolve(parse_requirements(requirements))
>>   File "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/pkg_resources.py", line 546, in
>> resolve
>> raise DistributionNotFound(req)
>> pkg_resources.DistributionNotFound: *tqdm*
>>
>> I think python package tqdm is missing. So I searched the package on
>> internet for Centos 6. But I didnt get the same.
>>
>> Please tell me how to proceed.
>>
>> Regards
>> Shilpa
>> On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 2:22:59 PM UTC+5:30, Shilpa R wrote:
>>>
>>> RBTool Version : 0.5
>>> Review Board Version : 1.7
>>> Using Linux Centos machine.
>>>
>>> All commands Showing the same error as below :-
>>>
>>> *rbt setup-repo*
>>> ERROR:root:Could not load SCM Client "svn": No module named etree
>>> ERROR:root:Could not load SCM Client "git": No module named etree
>>> ERROR:root:Could not load SCM Client "mercurial": No module named etree
>>> ERROR:root:The current directory does not contain a checkout from a
>>> supported source code repository.
>>> CRITICAL:root:1
>>>
>>> *rbt post*
>>> ERROR:root:Could not load SCM Client "svn": No module named etree
>>> ERROR:root:Could not load SCM Client "git": No module named etree
>>> ERROR:root:Could not load SCM Client "mercurial": No module named etree
>>> ERROR:root:No supported repository could be accessed at the supplied url.
>>> CRITICAL:root:1
>>>
>>> I have also configured .reviewboardrc file having values :-
>>>
>>> REVIEWBOARD_URL = "http://172.16.107.138/; (where my
>>> Review Board is running)
>>> REPOSITORY = "lte_epc" (Repo name configured in Review board)
>>>
>>> I am getting where is the issue and why it is not connecting to the
>>> Repository.
>>>
>> --
>> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
>> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
>> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
>> https://rbcommons.com/
>> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "reviewboard" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Unable to Connect to GIT Repository configured in Review Board

[Stephen Gallagher]

Sorry, that bug is my fault. I didn't realize python-tqdm wasn't available
on RHEL/CentOS 6 yet. I need to package that up and get an update out. I've
been kind of lazy about that. My apologies. I'll work on it now and
hopefully it should be in the epel-testing repo by Monday.

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 8:09 AM Shilpa R  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the input.
>
> Now I have installed RBTools 0.7 on Centos 6 machine.
> And when I am running rbt post command , following error is showing :-
>
> rbt post
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>   File "/usr/bin/rbt", line 5, in 
> from pkg_resources import load_entry_point
>   File "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/pkg_resources.py", line 2655, in
> 
> working_set.require(__requires__)
>   File "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/pkg_resources.py", line 648, in
> require
> needed = self.resolve(parse_requirements(requirements))
>   File "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/pkg_resources.py", line 546, in
> resolve
> raise DistributionNotFound(req)
> pkg_resources.DistributionNotFound: *tqdm*
>
> I think python package tqdm is missing. So I searched the package on
> internet for Centos 6. But I didnt get the same.
>
> Please tell me how to proceed.
>
> Regards
> Shilpa
> On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 2:22:59 PM UTC+5:30, Shilpa R wrote:
>>
>> RBTool Version : 0.5
>> Review Board Version : 1.7
>> Using Linux Centos machine.
>>
>> All commands Showing the same error as below :-
>>
>> *rbt setup-repo*
>> ERROR:root:Could not load SCM Client "svn": No module named etree
>> ERROR:root:Could not load SCM Client "git": No module named etree
>> ERROR:root:Could not load SCM Client "mercurial": No module named etree
>> ERROR:root:The current directory does not contain a checkout from a
>> supported source code repository.
>> CRITICAL:root:1
>>
>> *rbt post*
>> ERROR:root:Could not load SCM Client "svn": No module named etree
>> ERROR:root:Could not load SCM Client "git": No module named etree
>> ERROR:root:Could not load SCM Client "mercurial": No module named etree
>> ERROR:root:No supported repository could be accessed at the supplied url.
>> CRITICAL:root:1
>>
>> I have also configured .reviewboardrc file having values :-
>>
>> REVIEWBOARD_URL = "http://172.16.107.138/; (where my
>> Review Board is running)
>> REPOSITORY = "lte_epc" (Repo name configured in Review board)
>>
>> I am getting where is the issue and why it is not connecting to the
>> Repository.
>>
> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "reviewboard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re:

[Stephen Gallagher]

If you want to install ReviewBoard 2+ on CentOS 6, you need to completely
remove the RPMs and install from pip instead. Unfortunately RHEL 6 was
frozen on some very old versions of python libraries that Review board
cannot run against.

Since I can't modify official RHEL/CentOS packages to update them, I can't
support anything newer than RB 1.7 via RPMs on that platform.

You do however have the option of running a CentOS 7 VM or container on
your CentOS 6 host if you want to install the EPEL 7 packages for Review
Board. Otherwise, pip is your best option.
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 4:25 AM Shilpa R  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Can we install higher review board version (>1.7) on a linux machine of
> Centos 6.
>
> I have successfully installed 1.7 version but unable to get install more
> than this version.
>
> If we can install, then where can I find RPMS for Centos 6?
>
> Regards
> Shilpa
>
> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "reviewboard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: RBTools 0.7.10 is out

[Stephen Gallagher]

Fedora and EPEL packages are on their way to their respective
updates-testing repositories as well.
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 1:08 PM Christian Hammond 
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> We've put out a new release of RBTools 0.7.10, which includes fixes for
> Git, Git-SVN, Subversion, Team Foundation Server, ClearCase, and macOS.
>
> There's a complete write-up about the release at
> https://www.reviewboard.org/news/2017/05/24/rbtools-0-7-10-now-out/.
>
> One item I'd like to point people to is the blurb about the macOS
> installer. In the past, we had some... issues... with this installer, due
> to a variety of possible differences in Python installs across versions
> (and when using homebrew or python.org's installers).
>
> I believe I've finally fixed these issues basically for good, but want
> some testers before we put it up on the website again. Anyone want to beta
> test?
>
> Christian
>
> --
> Christian Hammond
> President/CEO of Beanbag 
> Makers of Review Board 
>
> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "reviewboard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Upgrading ReviewBoard on CentOS 6.4

[Stephen Gallagher]

CentOS 6 does not natively (via RPMs) provide all of the dependencies that
ReviewBoard 2.0+ requires. It is EOL in EPEL 6. If you would like to
upgrade, I recommend upgrading your host OS to CentOS 7. If you cannot do
that, you should remove the ReviewBoard RPMs and use the pip-installed
version instead.
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 3:10 PM Basavaraj Kolli 
wrote:

>
> Hi Team,
>
> I have installed the Review Board on CentOS 6.4 with the command 'yum
> install ReviewBoard`
> However this has installed the older version with 1.7.
>
> We would like to upgrade to the latest available version of ReviewBoard to
> gain the latest features.
>
> I am following the below document to perform the upgrade.
>
>
> https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/manual/1.7/admin/upgrading/upgrading-reviewboard/
>
> However below error is coming. Looking at the error, it seems that there
> are some dependencies missing or so.
> I am not sure what decencies will need to be resolved.  Could you please
> help me on this.
> Is there any other recommended way to perform the upgrade ?
>
> Here are my VM details.
> Let me know if any additional details are needed.
>
>
> CentOS 6.4
>
> Python 2.6.6
>
> OpenSSL 1.0.2j  26 Sep 2016
>
>
> Below is the error when I tried to upgrade with the command - easy_install
> -U ReviewBoard
>
> File "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/setuptools/sandbox.py", line 70, in
> run
> return func()
>   File "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/setuptools/sandbox.py", line 31,
> in 
> {'__file__':setup_script, '__name__':'__main__'}
>   File "setup.py", line 335, in 
> if host_platform == 'cygwin':
>   File "/usr/lib64/python2.6/distutils/core.py", line 113, in setup
> _setup_distribution = dist = klass(attrs)
>   File "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/setuptools/dist.py", line 225, in
> __init__
> _Distribution.__init__(self,attrs)
>   File "/usr/lib64/python2.6/distutils/dist.py", line 270, in __init__
> self.finalize_options()
>   File "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/setuptools/dist.py", line 258, in
> finalize_options
> ep.load()(self, ep.name, value)
>   File
> "/tmp/easy_install-SZ_Glv/cryptography-1.8.1/cffi-1.10.0-py2.6-linux-x86_64.egg/cffi/setuptools_ext.py",
> line 188, in cffi_modules
>   File
> "/tmp/easy_install-SZ_Glv/cryptography-1.8.1/cffi-1.10.0-py2.6-linux-x86_64.egg/cffi/setuptools_ext.py",
> line 49, in add_cffi_module
>   File
> "/tmp/easy_install-SZ_Glv/cryptography-1.8.1/cffi-1.10.0-py2.6-linux-x86_64.egg/cffi/setuptools_ext.py",
> line 25, in execfile
>   File "src/_cffi_src/build_openssl.py", line 94, in 
>   File
> "/tmp/easy_install-SZ_Glv/cryptography-1.8.1/src/_cffi_src/utils.py", line
> 61, in build_ffi_for_binding
>   File
> "/tmp/easy_install-SZ_Glv/cryptography-1.8.1/src/_cffi_src/utils.py", line
> 69, in build_ffi
>   File
> "/tmp/easy_install-SZ_Glv/cryptography-1.8.1/cffi-1.10.0-py2.6-linux-x86_64.egg/cffi/api.py",
> line 46, in __init__
> ImportError:
> /tmp/easy_install-SZ_Glv/cryptography-1.8.1/cffi-1.10.0-py2.6-linux-x86_64.egg/_cffi_backend.so:
> undefined symbol: PyUnicodeUCS2_AsASCIIString
> [root@gtstashtest1b Python-2.7.12]#
>
> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "reviewboard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Error after logging in with Active Directory 1.7.27

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 6:02 PM JD K  wrote:

> Thank you for the response. I am standing up a new instance of ReviewBoard
> on Centos 6.7, and 1.7.x was what yum installed from the epel repo, which
> from what I can tell is up to date. I would like to have a newer version of
> Reivew Board though. I am running python-ldap 2.3.10. I did not add the
> "REFERRAL" line.
>
>
>
HI, I'm the person who packaged Review Board for EPEL 6. Please do not use
it there. It stopped at 1.7.x because Review Board requires newer packages
to be available than we can have from the repositories on RHEL 6.

If you want to run a newer version of ReviewBoard, please either use the
packages for EPEL 7 on RHEL/CentOS 7 or else remove the RPMs and install
using `pip` on RHEL 6 (though I don't know how well that will work with
Python 2.6)

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

There was an error displaying this diff.

[Stephen Lee]

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.2-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/views.py",
 
line 275, in get
response = renderer.render_to_response(request)
  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.2-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/renderers.py",
 
line 56, in render_to_response
return HttpResponse(self.render_to_string(request))
  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.2-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/renderers.py",
 
line 74, in render_to_string
large_data=True)
  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/Djblets-0.9-py2.7.egg/djblets/cache/backend.py",
 
line 295, in cache_memoize
compress_large_data))
  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/Djblets-0.9-py2.7.egg/djblets/cache/backend.py",
 
line 249, in cache_memoize_iter
items = items_or_callable()
  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/Djblets-0.9-py2.7.egg/djblets/cache/backend.py",
 
line 292, in 
lambda: [lookup_callable()],
  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.2-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/renderers.py",
 
line 73, in 
lambda: self.render_to_string_uncached(request),
  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.2-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/renderers.py",
 
line 87, in render_to_string_uncached
request=request)
  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.2-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/diffutils.py",
 
line 422, in populate_diff_chunks
chunks = list(generator.get_chunks())
  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.2-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/chunk_generator.py",
 
line 756, in get_chunks
for chunk in super(DiffChunkGenerator, self).get_chunks(cache_key):
  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.2-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/chunk_generator.py",
 
line 107, in get_chunks
large_data=True)
  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/Djblets-0.9-py2.7.egg/djblets/cache/backend.py",
 
line 295, in cache_memoize
compress_large_data))
  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/Djblets-0.9-py2.7.egg/djblets/cache/backend.py",
 
line 249, in cache_memoize_iter
items = items_or_callable()
  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/Djblets-0.9-py2.7.egg/djblets/cache/backend.py",
 
line 292, in 
lambda: [lookup_callable()],
  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.2-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/chunk_generator.py",
 
line 106, in 
lambda: list(self.get_chunks_uncached()),
  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.2-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/chunk_generator.py",
 
line 762, in get_chunks_uncached
self.encoding_list)
  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.2-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/diffutils.py",
 
line 198, in get_original_file
request=request)
  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.2-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/scmtools/models.py",
 
line 359, in get_file
large_data=True)[0]
  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/Djblets-0.9-py2.7.egg/djblets/cache/backend.py",
 
line 295, in cache_memoize
compress_large_data))
  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/Djblets-0.9-py2.7.egg/djblets/cache/backend.py",
 
line 249, in cache_memoize_iter
items = items_or_callable()
  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/Djblets-0.9-py2.7.egg/djblets/cache/backend.py",
 
line 292, in 
lambda: [lookup_callable()],
  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.2-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/scmtools/models.py",
 
line 358, in 
request)],
  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.2-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/scmtools/models.py",
 
line 534, in _get_file_uncached
base_commit_id=base_commit_id)
  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.2-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/hostingsvcs/gitlab.py",
 
line 170, in get_file
raw_content=True)
  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.2-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/hostingsvcs/gitlab.py",
 
line 505, in _api_get
'PRIVATE-TOKEN': self._get_private_token(),
  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.2-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/hostingsvcs/service.py",
 
line 55, in http_get
return self.http_request(url, method='GET', **kwargs)
  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.2-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/hostingsvcs/service.py",
 
line 79, in http_request
u = urlopen(r)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/urllib2.py", line 127, in urlopen
return _opener.open(url, data, timeout)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/urllib2.py", line 401, in open
response = self._open(req, data)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/urllib2.py", line 419, in _open
'_open', req)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/urllib2.py", line 379, in _call_chain
result = func(*args)
  File 

Re: reviewboard 2.5.4 installation fails due to django version mismatch

[Stephen Gallagher]

You can also try using the EPEL packages for ReviewBoard which will pull in
the correct Django RPM. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL for
information on how to install the EPEL repository. Then do:
yum install --enablerepo=epel-testing ReviewBoard

(The reason for enabling the testing repo is that the latest security fix
release hasn't made it to the stable repo yet, but the previous release
would work without the testing repo)

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017, 8:43 PM Christian Hammond 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Looks like you have a newer version of Django on the system, which Review
> Board is not compatible with. You need to explicitly install the 1.6.11
> version (or, preferably, a security-patched version of this from
> http://downloads.reviewboard.org/releases/Django/1.6/ -- a new version
> will be coming out tonight). You can download a build from there and use it
> with easy_install or pip install.
>
> If you are running multiple apps on this server that require different
> versions of Django, then you'll need to use something like a virtualenv to
> separate the environments so that each can have their own correct versions
> of Django and other dependencies.
>
> Christian
>
> --
> Christian Hammond
> President/CEO of Beanbag 
> Makers of Review Board 
>
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Kartthik Raghunathan 
> wrote:
>
> I'm trying to install RB 2.5.4 on a Centos7.3 linux box and keep getting
> this below error message. I tried with 2.5.6 and 2.5.8 too but still facing
> the same issue.
>
> I tried removing django (yum remove Django) and reinstalling the RB but
> still getting struck at the same point. Can someone shed some light on this
> installation issue.
>
> [root@qa ~]# easy_install reviewboard==2.5.4
> Searching for reviewboard==2.5.4
> Reading https://pypi.python.org/simple/reviewboard/
> Best match: ReviewBoard 2.5.4
> Downloading
> https://pypi.python.org/packages/3f/04/e0f4d4754cc5a9bf05b5322f59b28fdb404f69648223786546e5d2be5225/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.7.egg#md5=bf3557e0dc1ebc1951f6ad638b3ba29a
> Processing ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.7.egg
> creating /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.7.egg
> Extracting ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.7.egg to /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages
> Adding ReviewBoard 2.5.4 to easy-install.pth file
> Installing rbssh script to /usr/bin
> Installing rb-site script to /usr/bin
>
> Installed /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.7.egg
> Reading http://downloads.reviewboard.org/mirror/
> Reading http://downloads.reviewboard.org/releases/Djblets/0.9/
> Reading http://downloads.reviewboard.org/releases/django-evolution/0.7/
> Processing dependencies for reviewboard==2.5.4
> *error: Installed distribution Django 1.6.11 conflicts with requirement
> Django>=1.8*
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "reviewboard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "reviewboard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: uglifyjs

[Stephen Gallagher]

So, the short (and probably not satisfying) answer is that the Fedora
packaging for ReviewBoard is focused around its deployment, not its
development. If you are hacking on ReviewBoard, you should probably be
doing so from the upstream repository rather than live-patching the
deployed version.

Upstream recently made changes that requires their specific NPMs in the
build process, so I have them bundled into the Source RPM in exactly the
format and layout that Djblets requires. This differs from the Fedora
packaging of uglify-js@2 as you have noticed, but it ensures that Fedora's
build is as close as possible to upstream's intended output.


On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 3:46 PM Christian Hammond <christ...@beanbaginc.com>
wrote:

> Yeah I don't know what's with the two package names. We've been using this
> one for a long time, which has worked without hiccups. We can try moving to
> uglify-js, but given the version bump, I want to do a lot of testing first.
> We're going to be shipping some new releases very soon, so I'd want to hold
> off until after those go out to try upgrading to uglify-js 2.8.
>
> Christian
>
> --
> Christian Hammond
> President/CEO of Beanbag <https://www.beanbaginc.com/>
> Makers of Review Board <https://www.reviewboard.org/>
>
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Erik Johansson <e...@ejohansson.se>
> wrote:
>
> Isn't it telling that the instructions on
> https://www.npmjs.com/package/uglifyjs for how to install the NPM is "npm
> install uglify-js" (note the dash).
>
> Also, looking at the package.json file for version 2.4.10, the name is
> actually uglify-js (
> https://github.com/mishoo/UglifyJS2/blob/v2.4.10/package.json).
>
> As for our local changes, I'm trying to push (at least some of) them
> upstream... (https://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/8585/, hint hint :) )
>
> // Erik
>
>
> On 29 March 2017 at 21:18, Christian Hammond <christ...@beanbaginc.com>
> wrote:
>
> Okay. Well, this sounds like a packaging issue on the RPM side (we're
> using the dependencies we mean to use), but someone rope me in if this
> turns out to be something we have to address locally.
>
> As for making changes to JavaScript/CSS, it's best if you can make these
> changes using an extension so you don't add to your maintenance burden or
> when upgrading Review Board, as things will undoubtedly break you in 3.0.
>
> Christian
>
> --
> Christian Hammond
> President/CEO of Beanbag <https://www.beanbaginc.com/>
> Makers of Review Board <https://www.reviewboard.org/>
>
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Erik Johansson <e...@ejohansson.se>
> wrote:
>
> After making some local changes to javascript/css files (I think - I'm not
> actually the person doing this, I just wanted to report it upstream to
> hopefully have it fixed going forward).
>
> // Erik
>
> On 29 March 2017 at 20:30, Christian Hammond <christ...@beanbaginc.com>
> wrote:
>
> Out of curiosity, why are you running collectstatic?
>
> Christian
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:25 Erik Johansson <e...@ejohansson.se> wrote:
>
> I'm not so sure that the problem is with the way Fedora packages uglifyjs.
> I think the problem is that RB uses https://www.npmjs.com/package/uglifyjs
> which seems to be version 2.4.10 of https://github.com/mishoo/UglifyJS2
> while Fedora packages the latest version of
> https://github.com/mishoo/UglifyJS2 which is available from
> https://www.npmjs.com/package/uglify-js.
>
> Something like the attached (untested) patches could perhaps be applied?
>
> // Erik
>
> On 29 March 2017 at 16:02, Stephen Gallagher <step...@gallagherhome.com>
> wrote:
>
> Would you please file a bug at
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Fedora%20EPEL against
> the "python-djblets" package with the exact commands you are running?
>
> I suspect it's a minor glitch with the way that Fedora packages uglifyjs
> vs. the upstream NPM. I can probably have a patch fairly quickly once you
> tell me how to reproduce it.
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 9:34 AM Erik Johansson <e...@ejohansson.se> wrote:
>
> The EPEL package.
>
> // Erik
>
>
> On Mar 29, 2017 15:10, "Stephen Gallagher" <step...@gallagherhome.com>
> wrote:
>
> Did you install ReviewBoard using pip or did you use the EPEL package for
> ReviewBoard and Djblets?
>
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 8:12 AM Erik Johansson <e...@ejohansson.se> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We are having problems running the collectstatic manage command on our
> CentOS installation (RB 2.5.9). The problem is that we have the uglify-js
> RPM installed which installs to /usr/lib/node_modules

Re: uglifyjs

[Stephen Gallagher]

Would you please file a bug at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Fedora%20EPEL against the
"python-djblets" package with the exact commands you are running?

I suspect it's a minor glitch with the way that Fedora packages uglifyjs
vs. the upstream NPM. I can probably have a patch fairly quickly once you
tell me how to reproduce it.


On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 9:34 AM Erik Johansson <e...@ejohansson.se> wrote:

> The EPEL package.
>
> // Erik
>
>
> On Mar 29, 2017 15:10, "Stephen Gallagher" <step...@gallagherhome.com>
> wrote:
>
> Did you install ReviewBoard using pip or did you use the EPEL package for
> ReviewBoard and Djblets?
>
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 8:12 AM Erik Johansson <e...@ejohansson.se> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We are having problems running the collectstatic manage command on our
> CentOS installation (RB 2.5.9). The problem is that we have the uglify-js
> RPM installed which installs to /usr/lib/node_modules/uglify-js while
> reviewboard/settings.py configures the path to be os.path.join(NODE_PATH,
> 'uglifyjs', 'bin', 'uglifyjs') (i.e. uglifyjs instead of uglify-js).
>
> This seems to be caused by RB (actually djblets) having a dependency on
> the uglifyjs NPM instead of uglify-js, even though both seems to use the
> same source, but the latter seems to be more active. Any reason for this?
>
> // Erik
>
> --
> Erik Johansson
> Home Page: http://ejohansson.se/
> PGP Key: http://ejohansson.se/erik.asc
>
> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "reviewboard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "reviewboard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "reviewboard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: uglifyjs

[Stephen Gallagher]

Did you install ReviewBoard using pip or did you use the EPEL package for
ReviewBoard and Djblets?

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 8:12 AM Erik Johansson  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> We are having problems running the collectstatic manage command on our
> CentOS installation (RB 2.5.9). The problem is that we have the uglify-js
> RPM installed which installs to /usr/lib/node_modules/uglify-js while
> reviewboard/settings.py configures the path to be os.path.join(NODE_PATH,
> 'uglifyjs', 'bin', 'uglifyjs') (i.e. uglifyjs instead of uglify-js).
>
> This seems to be caused by RB (actually djblets) having a dependency on
> the uglifyjs NPM instead of uglify-js, even though both seems to use the
> same source, but the latter seems to be more active. Any reason for this?
>
> // Erik
>
> --
> Erik Johansson
> Home Page: http://ejohansson.se/
> PGP Key: http://ejohansson.se/erik.asc
>
> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "reviewboard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Djblets Ticket #4526: Tool to generate package.json prior to executing `setup.py install`

[Stephen Gallagher]

--
To reply, visit https://hellosplat.com/s/beanbag/tickets/4526/
--

New ticket #4526 by sgallagh
For Beanbag, Inc. > Djblets

Status: New
Tags: Priority:Medium, Type:Enhancement


--
Tool to generate package.json prior to executing `setup.py install`
==

# What version are you using?
Djblets 0.9.6

# Which module(s) does this relate to?
Building the package

# Describe the enhancement and the motivation for it.
I maintain the EPEL (Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux) packages. One of the 
constraints there is that we cannot have network access during builds (in order 
to ensure reproducibility). As a result, we need to include all build 
dependencies in packages.

Because of the way that Node NPMs are packaged in EPEL, we need to be able to 
read the package.json that is created dynamically /before/ we start the 
`setup.py install` phase, or we cannot properly symlink things into the correct 
place.

# Please provide any additional information below.

This is blocking the packaging of Djblets 0.9.6 in EPEL (and by extension, 
ReviewBoard 2.5.9).

--

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard-issues" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard-issues+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to reviewboard-issues@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard-issues.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: ReviewBoard installation error (using clean CentOS7 from Docker)

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 11:20 AM O. Holzkamp  wrote:

> Hello,
> I had the same problems when trying to execute " rb-site install
> /var/www/reviewerBoard"
>
> After installing the proposed packages, the erro changed as following:
>
>
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>   File "/bin/rb-site", line 5, in 
> from pkg_resources import load_entry_point
>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources.py", line 3011, in
> 
> parse_requirements(__requires__), Environment()
>
>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources.py", line 626, in
> resolve
> raise DistributionNotFound(req)
> pkg_resources.DistributionNotFound: dnspython>=1.12.0
>
> Can you help me with that?
>
>
Do you have python-dns installed on the system? It should have been pulled
in by python-djblets...

What does `rpm -q python-dns` show you?

If it's showing you python-dns-1.11.1-1.el7, you need to get 1.12.0 from
RHEL/CentOS 7.3. I should have put an explicit version requirement on the
package, but I forgot to account for the possibility that people might have
older versions already installed. I'll push out an update that enforces
this shortly.

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Error: rb-site install

[Stephen Gallagher]

> On Jan 17, 2017, at 11:37 PM, krish  wrote:
> 
> Yes, I have installed ReviewBoard thrugh Yum.
> 
> Below are the commands.
> yum install 
> http://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/epel/7/x86_64/e/epel-release-7-6.noarch.rpm
> yum install ReviewBoard
> 
> Thanks,
> Krish
> 

Please try:

yum update --enablerepo=epel-testing ReviewBoard python-djblets 

There was a packaging bug in the version currently in the stable repository. 
The fix is still in the testing repo. 

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: ReviewBoard installation error (using clean CentOS7 from Docker)

[Stephen Gallagher]

Sorry, turned out I needed to make one more small change to the
python-djblets package:
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/python-djblets/0.9.4/3.el7/noarch/python-djblets-0.9.4-3.el7.noarch.rpm

On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 11:48 AM Stephen Gallagher <step...@gallagherhome.com>
wrote:

> I'm really sorry for the delay on this, but finally I have the RPMs fixed
> (I hope) in EPEL 7.
>
> You should be able to do:
> yum install
> https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/python-publicsuffix/1.1.0/1.el7/noarch/python2-publicsuffix-1.1.0-1.el7.noarch.rpm
>  \
>
> https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/python-djblets/0.9.4/2.el7/noarch/python-djblets-0.9.4-2.el7.noarch.rpm
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 1:43 AM Christian Hammond <christ...@beanbaginc.com>
> wrote:
>
> An option would be to install the latest RPMs and then install the missing
> Python packages using pip. That will satisfy Review Board's and Djblets's
> dependencies.
>
> Christian
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 15:51 Stephen Gallagher <step...@gallagherhome.com>
> wrote:
>
> Yes, absolutely. Sorry for the trouble. It's going to probably be at least
> a week, because python-publicsuffix isn't in EPEL yet, so I need to package
> it.
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 5:53 PM Pramudita Santoso <
> pramudita.sant...@fivium.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Hi Stephen,
>
> I tried to just simply substitute ReviewBoard-2.5.6.1 with all those
> three, seems that other dependencies fails too to install those three rpm
> (in different order). Anyway, probably be best if I just wait for the
> updated one. Could you please give us a shout when its done? Thanks.
>
>
> On Thursday, 8 December 2016 11:49:26 UTC+11, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> OK, somehow I missed that Djblets grew a dependency on publicsuffix and
> dnspython and RBTools grew a dependency on python-tqdm.
>
> I'll try to get updates for this ASAP, but publicsuffix isn't packaged yet
> in EPEL, so it may take a few days.
>
> Pramudita, if you want to use the 2.5.6.1 packages for now, you will need:
>
>
> https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/python-djblets/0.9.3/1.el7/noarch/python-djblets-0.9.3-1.el7.noarch.rpm
>
> https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/ReviewBoard/2.5.6.1/1.el7/noarch/ReviewBoard-2.5.6.1-1.el7.noarch.rpm
>
> https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/RBTools/0.7.7/1.el7/noarch/RBTools-0.7.7-1.el7.noarch.rpm
>
> Download and install those and you should be okay while I get this sorted
> out.
>
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 6:18 PM Christian Hammond <chri...@beanbaginc.com>
> wrote:
>
> publicsuffix is a new dependency of Djblets. I don't recall if it's the
> only new one.
>
> Christian
>
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 14:42 Pramudita Santoso <pramudit...@fivium.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Stephen,
>
> Is it `rb-site install` after all of the yum commands succeed? *Yes all
> the yum commands succeed.*
> Where in the process is it failing? *After yum installation finish I
> execute a shell script as docker entrypoint that runs rb-site install,* *so
> I believe "rb-site install" or "rb-site" in general who produces those
> errors*
> Is it being run interactively and failing unconditionally, or is it being
> provided with answers on the CLI? *I believe this execution is just as
> simple as running rb-site install and as far as I am aware there is no
> interaction with CLI involved.*
>
> Yes I believe your suspicion is true, since 2.5.6.1 version works just
> fine for me. I wonder is there any way to install 2.5.6.1 version with yum?
> Thanks
>
> On Wednesday, 7 December 2016 22:46:03 UTC+11, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 2:24 AM Pramudita Santoso <pramudit...@fivium.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> Since the update of version 2.5.7, I am not able to install reviewboard. I
> am not sure what I am missing.
>
> My command is very simple
>
> RUN yum groupinstall -y "Development tools"
> RUN yum install -y epel-release
> RUN yum install -y ReviewBoard
> RUN yum install -y uwsgi
> RUN yum install -y RBTools
>
>
> Here is the error :
>
> *Traceback (most recent call last):*
> *  File "/usr/bin/rb-site", line 5, in *
> *from pkg_resources import load_entry_point*
> *  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources.py", line 3007, in
> *
> *working_set.require(__requires__)*
> *  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources.py", line 728, in
> require*
> *needed = self.resolve(parse_requirements(requirements))*
> *  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources.py", line 626, in
> resolve*
> *

Re: ReviewBoard installation error (using clean CentOS7 from Docker)

[Stephen Gallagher]

I'm really sorry for the delay on this, but finally I have the RPMs fixed
(I hope) in EPEL 7.

You should be able to do:
yum install
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/python-publicsuffix/1.1.0/1.el7/noarch/python2-publicsuffix-1.1.0-1.el7.noarch.rpm
 \

https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/python-djblets/0.9.4/2.el7/noarch/python-djblets-0.9.4-2.el7.noarch.rpm



On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 1:43 AM Christian Hammond <christ...@beanbaginc.com>
wrote:

> An option would be to install the latest RPMs and then install the missing
> Python packages using pip. That will satisfy Review Board's and Djblets's
> dependencies.
>
> Christian
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 15:51 Stephen Gallagher <step...@gallagherhome.com>
> wrote:
>
> Yes, absolutely. Sorry for the trouble. It's going to probably be at least
> a week, because python-publicsuffix isn't in EPEL yet, so I need to package
> it.
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 5:53 PM Pramudita Santoso <
> pramudita.sant...@fivium.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Hi Stephen,
>
> I tried to just simply substitute ReviewBoard-2.5.6.1 with all those
> three, seems that other dependencies fails too to install those three rpm
> (in different order). Anyway, probably be best if I just wait for the
> updated one. Could you please give us a shout when its done? Thanks.
>
>
> On Thursday, 8 December 2016 11:49:26 UTC+11, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> OK, somehow I missed that Djblets grew a dependency on publicsuffix and
> dnspython and RBTools grew a dependency on python-tqdm.
>
> I'll try to get updates for this ASAP, but publicsuffix isn't packaged yet
> in EPEL, so it may take a few days.
>
> Pramudita, if you want to use the 2.5.6.1 packages for now, you will need:
>
>
> https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/python-djblets/0.9.3/1.el7/noarch/python-djblets-0.9.3-1.el7.noarch.rpm
>
> https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/ReviewBoard/2.5.6.1/1.el7/noarch/ReviewBoard-2.5.6.1-1.el7.noarch.rpm
>
> https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/RBTools/0.7.7/1.el7/noarch/RBTools-0.7.7-1.el7.noarch.rpm
>
> Download and install those and you should be okay while I get this sorted
> out.
>
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 6:18 PM Christian Hammond <chri...@beanbaginc.com>
> wrote:
>
> publicsuffix is a new dependency of Djblets. I don't recall if it's the
> only new one.
>
> Christian
>
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 14:42 Pramudita Santoso <pramudit...@fivium.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Stephen,
>
> Is it `rb-site install` after all of the yum commands succeed? *Yes all
> the yum commands succeed.*
> Where in the process is it failing? *After yum installation finish I
> execute a shell script as docker entrypoint that runs rb-site install,* *so
> I believe "rb-site install" or "rb-site" in general who produces those
> errors*
> Is it being run interactively and failing unconditionally, or is it being
> provided with answers on the CLI? *I believe this execution is just as
> simple as running rb-site install and as far as I am aware there is no
> interaction with CLI involved.*
>
> Yes I believe your suspicion is true, since 2.5.6.1 version works just
> fine for me. I wonder is there any way to install 2.5.6.1 version with yum?
> Thanks
>
> On Wednesday, 7 December 2016 22:46:03 UTC+11, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 2:24 AM Pramudita Santoso <pramudit...@fivium.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> Since the update of version 2.5.7, I am not able to install reviewboard. I
> am not sure what I am missing.
>
> My command is very simple
>
> RUN yum groupinstall -y "Development tools"
> RUN yum install -y epel-release
> RUN yum install -y ReviewBoard
> RUN yum install -y uwsgi
> RUN yum install -y RBTools
>
>
> Here is the error :
>
> *Traceback (most recent call last):*
> *  File "/usr/bin/rb-site", line 5, in *
> *from pkg_resources import load_entry_point*
> *  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources.py", line 3007, in
> *
> *working_set.require(__requires__)*
> *  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources.py", line 728, in
> require*
> *needed = self.resolve(parse_requirements(requirements))*
> *  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources.py", line 626, in
> resolve*
> *raise DistributionNotFound(req)*
> *pkg_resources.DistributionNotFound: publicsuffix>=1.1*
>
> I tried to install publicsuffix manually using wget, but then another
> error DistributionNotFound for dnspython>=1.14.0 appeared. I am afraid that
> if I keep patching it manually, it will somehow be endless chain of
> installation..
>
>

Re: ReviewBoard installation error (using clean CentOS7 from Docker)

[Stephen Gallagher]

Yes, absolutely. Sorry for the trouble. It's going to probably be at least
a week, because python-publicsuffix isn't in EPEL yet, so I need to package
it.
On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 5:53 PM Pramudita Santoso <
pramudita.sant...@fivium.co.uk> wrote:

> Hi Stephen,
>
> I tried to just simply substitute ReviewBoard-2.5.6.1 with all those
> three, seems that other dependencies fails too to install those three rpm
> (in different order). Anyway, probably be best if I just wait for the
> updated one. Could you please give us a shout when its done? Thanks.
>
>
> On Thursday, 8 December 2016 11:49:26 UTC+11, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> OK, somehow I missed that Djblets grew a dependency on publicsuffix and
> dnspython and RBTools grew a dependency on python-tqdm.
>
> I'll try to get updates for this ASAP, but publicsuffix isn't packaged yet
> in EPEL, so it may take a few days.
>
> Pramudita, if you want to use the 2.5.6.1 packages for now, you will need:
>
>
> https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/python-djblets/0.9.3/1.el7/noarch/python-djblets-0.9.3-1.el7.noarch.rpm
>
> https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/ReviewBoard/2.5.6.1/1.el7/noarch/ReviewBoard-2.5.6.1-1.el7.noarch.rpm
>
> https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/RBTools/0.7.7/1.el7/noarch/RBTools-0.7.7-1.el7.noarch.rpm
>
> Download and install those and you should be okay while I get this sorted
> out.
>
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 6:18 PM Christian Hammond <chri...@beanbaginc.com>
> wrote:
>
> publicsuffix is a new dependency of Djblets. I don't recall if it's the
> only new one.
>
> Christian
>
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 14:42 Pramudita Santoso <pramudit...@fivium.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Stephen,
>
> Is it `rb-site install` after all of the yum commands succeed? *Yes all
> the yum commands succeed.*
> Where in the process is it failing? *After yum installation finish I
> execute a shell script as docker entrypoint that runs rb-site install,* *so
> I believe "rb-site install" or "rb-site" in general who produces those
> errors*
> Is it being run interactively and failing unconditionally, or is it being
> provided with answers on the CLI? *I believe this execution is just as
> simple as running rb-site install and as far as I am aware there is no
> interaction with CLI involved.*
>
> Yes I believe your suspicion is true, since 2.5.6.1 version works just
> fine for me. I wonder is there any way to install 2.5.6.1 version with yum?
> Thanks
>
> On Wednesday, 7 December 2016 22:46:03 UTC+11, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 2:24 AM Pramudita Santoso <pramudit...@fivium.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> Since the update of version 2.5.7, I am not able to install reviewboard. I
> am not sure what I am missing.
>
> My command is very simple
>
> RUN yum groupinstall -y "Development tools"
> RUN yum install -y epel-release
> RUN yum install -y ReviewBoard
> RUN yum install -y uwsgi
> RUN yum install -y RBTools
>
>
> Here is the error :
>
> *Traceback (most recent call last):*
> *  File "/usr/bin/rb-site", line 5, in *
> *from pkg_resources import load_entry_point*
> *  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources.py", line 3007, in
> *
> *working_set.require(__requires__)*
> *  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources.py", line 728, in
> require*
> *needed = self.resolve(parse_requirements(requirements))*
> *  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources.py", line 626, in
> resolve*
> *raise DistributionNotFound(req)*
> *pkg_resources.DistributionNotFound: publicsuffix>=1.1*
>
> I tried to install publicsuffix manually using wget, but then another
> error DistributionNotFound for dnspython>=1.14.0 appeared. I am afraid that
> if I keep patching it manually, it will somehow be endless chain of
> installation..
>
> *Note : using ReviewBoard 2.5.6.1 the installation above was working fine.
> But, yum install -y ReviewBoard-2.5.6.1 seems to be no longer exist and
> normal ReviewBoard will go to 2.5.7.
> I also tried easy_install workaround and the error messages are even
> longer and scarier.
>
> Does anyone know what is going on? Thanks in advance!
>
>
> Could you tell me which step is actually failing? Is it `rb-site install`
> after all of the yum commands succeed? Where in the process is it failing?
> Is it being run interactively and failing unconditionally, or is it being
> provided with answers on the CLI?
>
> I suspect that something in ReviewBoard's dependency chain grew a new
> dependency or two and wasn't properly updated in RPM, but I can't track 

Re: ReviewBoard installation error (using clean CentOS7 from Docker)

[Stephen Gallagher]

OK, somehow I missed that Djblets grew a dependency on publicsuffix and
dnspython and RBTools grew a dependency on python-tqdm.

I'll try to get updates for this ASAP, but publicsuffix isn't packaged yet
in EPEL, so it may take a few days.

Pramudita, if you want to use the 2.5.6.1 packages for now, you will need:

https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/python-djblets/0.9.3/1.el7/noarch/python-djblets-0.9.3-1.el7.noarch.rpm
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/ReviewBoard/2.5.6.1/1.el7/noarch/ReviewBoard-2.5.6.1-1.el7.noarch.rpm
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/RBTools/0.7.7/1.el7/noarch/RBTools-0.7.7-1.el7.noarch.rpm

Download and install those and you should be okay while I get this sorted
out.

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 6:18 PM Christian Hammond <christ...@beanbaginc.com>
wrote:

> publicsuffix is a new dependency of Djblets. I don't recall if it's the
> only new one.
>
> Christian
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 14:42 Pramudita Santoso <
> pramudita.sant...@fivium.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Hi Stephen,
>
> Is it `rb-site install` after all of the yum commands succeed? *Yes all
> the yum commands succeed.*
> Where in the process is it failing? *After yum installation finish I
> execute a shell script as docker entrypoint that runs rb-site install,* *so
> I believe "rb-site install" or "rb-site" in general who produces those
> errors*
> Is it being run interactively and failing unconditionally, or is it being
> provided with answers on the CLI? *I believe this execution is just as
> simple as running rb-site install and as far as I am aware there is no
> interaction with CLI involved.*
>
> Yes I believe your suspicion is true, since 2.5.6.1 version works just
> fine for me. I wonder is there any way to install 2.5.6.1 version with yum?
> Thanks
>
> On Wednesday, 7 December 2016 22:46:03 UTC+11, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 2:24 AM Pramudita Santoso <pramudit...@fivium.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> Since the update of version 2.5.7, I am not able to install reviewboard. I
> am not sure what I am missing.
>
> My command is very simple
>
> RUN yum groupinstall -y "Development tools"
> RUN yum install -y epel-release
> RUN yum install -y ReviewBoard
> RUN yum install -y uwsgi
> RUN yum install -y RBTools
>
>
> Here is the error :
>
> *Traceback (most recent call last):*
> *  File "/usr/bin/rb-site", line 5, in *
> *from pkg_resources import load_entry_point*
> *  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources.py", line 3007, in
> *
> *working_set.require(__requires__)*
> *  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources.py", line 728, in
> require*
> *needed = self.resolve(parse_requirements(requirements))*
> *  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources.py", line 626, in
> resolve*
> *raise DistributionNotFound(req)*
> *pkg_resources.DistributionNotFound: publicsuffix>=1.1*
>
> I tried to install publicsuffix manually using wget, but then another
> error DistributionNotFound for dnspython>=1.14.0 appeared. I am afraid that
> if I keep patching it manually, it will somehow be endless chain of
> installation..
>
> *Note : using ReviewBoard 2.5.6.1 the installation above was working fine.
> But, yum install -y ReviewBoard-2.5.6.1 seems to be no longer exist and
> normal ReviewBoard will go to 2.5.7.
> I also tried easy_install workaround and the error messages are even
> longer and scarier.
>
> Does anyone know what is going on? Thanks in advance!
>
>
> Could you tell me which step is actually failing? Is it `rb-site install`
> after all of the yum commands succeed? Where in the process is it failing?
> Is it being run interactively and failing unconditionally, or is it being
> provided with answers on the CLI?
>
> I suspect that something in ReviewBoard's dependency chain grew a new
> dependency or two and wasn't properly updated in RPM, but I can't track it
> down if you don't tell me what you're actually running.
>
> I'm at a conference today, so I probably won't be able to dive into the
> details until tomorrow.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
>
>
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
>
>
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
>
>
> ---
>
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "reviewboard" group.
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email 

Re: ReviewBoard installation error (using clean CentOS7 from Docker)

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 2:24 AM Pramudita Santoso <
pramudita.sant...@fivium.co.uk> wrote:

Since the update of version 2.5.7, I am not able to install reviewboard. I
am not sure what I am missing.

My command is very simple

RUN yum groupinstall -y "Development tools"
RUN yum install -y epel-release
RUN yum install -y ReviewBoard
RUN yum install -y uwsgi
RUN yum install -y RBTools


Here is the error :

*Traceback (most recent call last):*
*  File "/usr/bin/rb-site", line 5, in *
*from pkg_resources import load_entry_point*
*  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources.py", line 3007, in
*
*working_set.require(__requires__)*
*  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources.py", line 728, in
require*
*needed = self.resolve(parse_requirements(requirements))*
*  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources.py", line 626, in
resolve*
*raise DistributionNotFound(req)*
*pkg_resources.DistributionNotFound: publicsuffix>=1.1*

I tried to install publicsuffix manually using wget, but then another error
DistributionNotFound for dnspython>=1.14.0 appeared. I am afraid that if I
keep patching it manually, it will somehow be endless chain of
installation..

*Note : using ReviewBoard 2.5.6.1 the installation above was working fine.
But, yum install -y ReviewBoard-2.5.6.1 seems to be no longer exist and
normal ReviewBoard will go to 2.5.7.
I also tried easy_install workaround and the error messages are even longer
and scarier.

Does anyone know what is going on? Thanks in advance!


Could you tell me which step is actually failing? Is it `rb-site install`
after all of the yum commands succeed? Where in the process is it failing?
Is it being run interactively and failing unconditionally, or is it being
provided with answers on the CLI?

I suspect that something in ReviewBoard's dependency chain grew a new
dependency or two and wasn't properly updated in RPM, but I can't track it
down if you don't tell me what you're actually running.

I'm at a conference today, so I probably won't be able to dive into the
details until tomorrow.

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Using SVN Protocol

[Stephen Gallagher]

You need to install the policycoreutils-python package for those tools. I
thought they were part of the standard install, but maybe not.
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 7:05 AM Pete Singleton <pete.single...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Both commands audit2why and audit2allow fail on my server... doesn't
> appear to be installed.  (CentOS 6.8)
>
> On 22 November 2016 at 11:43, Stephen Gallagher <step...@gallagherhome.com
> > wrote:
>
> Please do as Christian suggested and run the audit2allow command (please
> do 'audit2why < /var/log/audit/audit.log' as well) and paste the results
> here. I'll interpret it and see whether:
> 1) It can be fixed by setting an SELinux Boolean or
> 2) It should be fixed by extending the SELinux policy shipped in the
> distribution.
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 5:06 AM Pete Singleton <pete.single...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Ok, that was the problem - we have set SELinux to 'permissive' and I can
> now add the repository.  Thanks!
>
> Pete
>
>
> On Tuesday, 22 November 2016 09:44:19 UTC, Christian Hammond wrote:
>
> Hi Pete,
>
> It's very likely SELinux. You can verify by temporarily turning it off and
> trying to connect. If that works, then that's your culprit.
>
> How did you install Review Board? If via the RPMs, I believe SELinux
> support should be configured correctly. If by the Python packages, you'd
> have to tweak the configuration manually.
>
> (I really want to get a guide for this..)
>
> Can you run the following as root and paste the results:  audit2allow <
> /var/log/audit/audit.log
>
> Christian
>
>
> --
> Christian Hammond
> President/CEO of Beanbag <https://www.beanbaginc.com/>
> Makers of Review Board <https://www.reviewboard.org/>
>
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 1:38 AM, Pete Singleton <pete.si...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi, I don't believe so no.  (I'd need to check with our sysadmin guys but
> I'm pretty sure there's nothing else).
> I've been reading a few other posts on here, and we have SELinux enabled
> on the ReviewBoard VM, could this be a problem?
>
> Pete
>
> On 22 November 2016 at 09:35, Christian Hammond <chri...@beanbaginc.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Pete,
>
> Are there any other types of access controls on that server? Does it
> restrict based on IP, or is it using some other form of authentication
> method (Kerberos, for instance)?
>
> Christian
>
>
> --
> Christian Hammond
> President/CEO of Beanbag <https://www.beanbaginc.com/>
> Makers of Review Board <https://www.reviewboard.org/>
>
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 1:21 AM, Pete Singleton <pete.si...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I've now enabled logging, and it appears to show a permission problem:
>
> SVN: Failed to get repository information for svn://
> svn.dev.pbsnetworks.com: Can't connect to host 'svn.dev.pbsnetworks.com':
> Permission denied
>
> But the user/password I've specified (my own) are the same ones that work
> from the command line and are valid SVN users.
>
> Pete
>
>
> On Monday, 21 November 2016 17:17:56 UTC, Pete Singleton wrote:
>
> Is it possible to use the SVN:// protocol with RB?  I am receiving an
> error when entering the repository URL ("A repository was not found at the
> specified path")
>
> I have a local installation of ReviewBoard, from that VM I am able to run
> "svn list svn://xxx.xxx.xxx" but it won't let me add the same repository
> from the Admin page.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Pete
>
> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "reviewboard" group.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to reviewboard...@googlegroups.com.
>
>
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "reviewboard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/reviewboard/zfY_bxJ8SLE/unsubscribe.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> reviewboard...@googlegroups.com.
>
>
> Fo

Re: Using SVN Protocol

[Stephen Gallagher]

Please do as Christian suggested and run the audit2allow command (please do
'audit2why < /var/log/audit/audit.log' as well) and paste the results here.
I'll interpret it and see whether:
1) It can be fixed by setting an SELinux Boolean or
2) It should be fixed by extending the SELinux policy shipped in the
distribution.
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 5:06 AM Pete Singleton 
wrote:

> Ok, that was the problem - we have set SELinux to 'permissive' and I can
> now add the repository.  Thanks!
>
> Pete
>
>
> On Tuesday, 22 November 2016 09:44:19 UTC, Christian Hammond wrote:
>
> Hi Pete,
>
> It's very likely SELinux. You can verify by temporarily turning it off and
> trying to connect. If that works, then that's your culprit.
>
> How did you install Review Board? If via the RPMs, I believe SELinux
> support should be configured correctly. If by the Python packages, you'd
> have to tweak the configuration manually.
>
> (I really want to get a guide for this..)
>
> Can you run the following as root and paste the results:  audit2allow <
> /var/log/audit/audit.log
>
> Christian
>
>
> --
> Christian Hammond
> President/CEO of Beanbag 
> Makers of Review Board 
>
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 1:38 AM, Pete Singleton 
> wrote:
>
> Hi, I don't believe so no.  (I'd need to check with our sysadmin guys but
> I'm pretty sure there's nothing else).
> I've been reading a few other posts on here, and we have SELinux enabled
> on the ReviewBoard VM, could this be a problem?
>
> Pete
>
> On 22 November 2016 at 09:35, Christian Hammond 
> wrote:
>
> Hi Pete,
>
> Are there any other types of access controls on that server? Does it
> restrict based on IP, or is it using some other form of authentication
> method (Kerberos, for instance)?
>
> Christian
>
>
> --
> Christian Hammond
> President/CEO of Beanbag 
> Makers of Review Board 
>
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 1:21 AM, Pete Singleton 
> wrote:
>
> I've now enabled logging, and it appears to show a permission problem:
>
> SVN: Failed to get repository information for svn://
> svn.dev.pbsnetworks.com: Can't connect to host 'svn.dev.pbsnetworks.com':
> Permission denied
>
> But the user/password I've specified (my own) are the same ones that work
> from the command line and are valid SVN users.
>
> Pete
>
>
> On Monday, 21 November 2016 17:17:56 UTC, Pete Singleton wrote:
>
> Is it possible to use the SVN:// protocol with RB?  I am receiving an
> error when entering the repository URL ("A repository was not found at the
> specified path")
>
> I have a local installation of ReviewBoard, from that VM I am able to run
> "svn list svn://xxx.xxx.xxx" but it won't let me add the same repository
> from the Admin page.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Pete
>
> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "reviewboard" group.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to reviewboard...@googlegroups.com.
>
>
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "reviewboard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/reviewboard/zfY_bxJ8SLE/unsubscribe.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> reviewboard...@googlegroups.com.
>
>
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "reviewboard" group.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to reviewboard...@googlegroups.com.
>
>
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "reviewboard" group.
> To unsubscribe 

Re: Initial login to ReviewBoard site says Manual server updates required

[Stephen Gallagher]

Take a look at
https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/manual/2.5/admin/installation/creating-sites/

(The same instructions work for 2.0, but the docs haven't been backported).

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 11:46 AM Dunnigan, Terrence J <
terrence.j.dunni...@boeing.com> wrote:

> I found this on the 2.0 documentation pages (
> https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/manual/2.0/admin/installation/creating-sites/
> ):
>
>
>
> Ø  On Fedora and Red Hat-derived systems, the following commands should
> be run (as root) to avoid SELinux denials:: $ setsebool -P
> httpd_can_sendmail 1 $ setsebool -P httpd_can_network_memcache 1
>
>
>
> Is there anything else?
>
>
>
> Terry
>
>
>
> *From:* reviewboard@googlegroups.com [mailto:reviewboard@googlegroups.com]
> *On Behalf Of *Stephen Gallagher
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 17, 2016 5:30 AM
> *To:* reviewboard <reviewboard@googlegroups.com>
> *Subject:* Re: Initial login to ReviewBoard site says Manual server
> updates required
>
>
>
> That old post is far out of date. See the online documentation which
> describes how to run Review Board with SELinux in enforcing mode (much more
> secure!)
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 5:59 AM Muneer <ajmun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> The issue is resolved.
>
> I came across an old post from Christian,
>
>
>
> "Can you check if SELinux is turned on, and if so, turn it off?
>
> Christian "
>
>
>
> and that did the trick. I changed the SeLinux status to 'permissive'.
>
> Perhaps this Tip also should be enlisted in the Reviewboard initial page
> and not just 'chown -R ' commands
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Muneer
>
>
>
> On Thursday, 17 November 2016 12:45:12 UTC+5:30, Muneer wrote:
>
> Hello Team,
>
>
>
> I am new to ReviewBoard.
>
> Heard that it as a great tool for code review and I tried to install the
> same in my RHEL7 machine.
>
>
>
> Installed the dependencies and ReviewBoard site (
> http://localhost/reviews.example.com)
>
>
>
> Now when I am trying to login, it says
>
>
>
> "A recent upgrade requires manual updates to be made on this server.
> After these changes are made, you should restart your web server
> Permission problems
>
> $ sudo chown -R apache "/var/www/reviews.example.com/data"
>
> $ sudo chown -R apache "/var/www/reviews.example.com/htdocs/media/ext"
>
>  $ sudo chown -R apache "/var/www/reviews.example.com/htdocs/static/ext"
>
>
>
> I gave these permissions and restarted the 'httpd' service, but still getting 
> the same Updates require page.
>
> Could you please help me here.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Muneer
>
> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "reviewboard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "reviewboard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "reviewboard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Initial login to ReviewBoard site says Manual server updates required

[Stephen Gallagher]

That old post is far out of date. See the online documentation which
describes how to run Review Board with SELinux in enforcing mode (much more
secure!)
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 5:59 AM Muneer  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> The issue is resolved.
> I came across an old post from Christian,
>
> "Can you check if SELinux is turned on, and if so, turn it off?
> Christian "
>
> and that did the trick. I changed the SeLinux status to 'permissive'.
> Perhaps this Tip also should be enlisted in the Reviewboard initial page
> and not just 'chown -R ' commands
>
> Thanks,
> Muneer
>
>
> On Thursday, 17 November 2016 12:45:12 UTC+5:30, Muneer wrote:
>
> Hello Team,
>
> I am new to ReviewBoard.
> Heard that it as a great tool for code review and I tried to install the
> same in my RHEL7 machine.
>
> Installed the dependencies and ReviewBoard site (
> http://localhost/reviews.example.com)
>
> Now when I am trying to login, it says
>
> "A recent upgrade requires manual updates to be made on this server.
> After these changes are made, you should restart your web server
> Permission problems
>
> $ sudo chown -R apache "/var/www/reviews.example.com/data"
>
> $ sudo chown -R apache "/var/www/reviews.example.com/htdocs/media/ext"
>
>  $ sudo chown -R apache "/var/www/reviews.example.com/htdocs/static/ext"
>
>
> I gave these permissions and restarted the 'httpd' service, but still getting 
> the same Updates require page.
>
> Could you please help me here.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Muneer
>
> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "reviewboard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: yum repos on EC2 instances don't have ReviewBoard

[Stephen Gallagher]

Yes, Review Board is in the EPEL (Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux)
repository provided by the Fedora Project.

I've never tested it with Amazon Linux though; it's only known to work with
RHEL 7 and CentOS 7.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 2:36 PM Tim Cares  wrote:

> Hello,
> I'm trying to install ReviewBoard via yum, i.e. 'sudo yum install
> ReviewBoard' and getting this response:
>
> sudo yum install ReviewBoard
> Loaded plugins: priorities, update-motd, upgrade-helper
> No package ReviewBoard available.
> Error: Nothing to do
>
> I'm running on an EC2 Linux instance in AWS (using the AMZN instance
> type). Do I need to install a specific repo to get this package?
>
> Thanks,
> Tim
>
> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "reviewboard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Review Board 2.0.25 and 2.5.7 are out

[Stephen Gallagher]

Ok, I'll look into doing that tomorrow.
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 4:09 PM Alexey Neyman <alexey.ney...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Stephen,
>
> We're have  a mix of CentOS and Ubuntu machines, but as far as I
> understand, most installed RBTools via pip, not RPM.
> Patching the official packages may help other users (and at least some of
> our developers), though, so thanks!
>
> Regards,
> Alexey.
>
>
> On 10/19/2016 12:52 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> Alexey, if you're using RHEL or Fedora clients, I can patch the official
> Fedora and EPEL packages to include that for you until it releases
> upstream.
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 3:49 PM Alexey Neyman <alexey.ney...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Christian,
>
> Are RBTools 0.7.7 in the queue, too? It's almost half a year since the
> 0.7.6 release, and 0.7.6 had quite annoying (for us) bug with recognition
> of SVN repositories by UUID. I am a bit tired of telling each developer to
> patch up his installation of RBTools with
> https://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/8226/ :)
>
> Regards,
> Alexey.
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 12:04:13 PM UTC-7, Christian Hammond
> wrote:
>
> Hey everyone,
>
> We've put out a couple new Review Board releases: 2.0.25 and 2.5.7.
>
> These are bug fix and feature releases. 2.5.7 fixes over 40 bugs, and
> introduces many new features for users, administrators, and extension
> authors. There's a bunch of user and repository administrative
> improvements, e-mail DMARC/SPF compatibility, extension unit testing
> support, and much more.
>
> See our announcement for more details on these releases:
>
>
> https://www.reviewboard.org/news/2016/10/17/new-review-board-2-0-25-and-2-5-7-releases/
>
> We're gearing up for a big 3.0 beta 1 release, so keep an eye out for that!
>
> Christian
>
> --
> Christian Hammond
> President/CEO of Beanbag <https://www.beanbaginc.com/>
> Makers of Review Board <https://www.reviewboard.org/>
>
> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "reviewboard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "reviewboard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/reviewboard/4bHz3yXGu58/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>
>
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "reviewboard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Review Board 2.0.25 and 2.5.7 are out

[Stephen Gallagher]

Alexey, if you're using RHEL or Fedora clients, I can patch the official
Fedora and EPEL packages to include that for you until it releases
upstream.
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 3:49 PM Alexey Neyman 
wrote:

> Hi Christian,
>
> Are RBTools 0.7.7 in the queue, too? It's almost half a year since the
> 0.7.6 release, and 0.7.6 had quite annoying (for us) bug with recognition
> of SVN repositories by UUID. I am a bit tired of telling each developer to
> patch up his installation of RBTools with
> https://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/8226/ :)
>
> Regards,
> Alexey.
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 12:04:13 PM UTC-7, Christian Hammond wrote:
>
> Hey everyone,
>
> We've put out a couple new Review Board releases: 2.0.25 and 2.5.7.
>
> These are bug fix and feature releases. 2.5.7 fixes over 40 bugs, and
> introduces many new features for users, administrators, and extension
> authors. There's a bunch of user and repository administrative
> improvements, e-mail DMARC/SPF compatibility, extension unit testing
> support, and much more.
>
> See our announcement for more details on these releases:
>
>
> https://www.reviewboard.org/news/2016/10/17/new-review-board-2-0-25-and-2-5-7-releases/
>
> We're gearing up for a big 3.0 beta 1 release, so keep an eye out for that!
>
> Christian
>
> --
> Christian Hammond
> President/CEO of Beanbag 
> Makers of Review Board 
>
> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "reviewboard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: How to access the review board site from other system via browser?

[Stephen Gallagher]

Did you follow the instructions for setting up ReviewBoard in the
administrator documentation?

Also, what OS is this? If it's RHEL/CentOS 7, you can use the RPMs I
provide in the EPEL 7 repository rather than easy_install.

But I suspect that the problem was that you didn't copy the generated
config file to /etc/http.conf.d/ and restart Apache.

All of this is in the manual.
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:15 PM Daniel Kuecker  wrote:

> Are you getting an error?
>
> Did you copy your apache-wsgi.conf to /etc/httpd/conf.d/?
>
> If you did that, you might need to enable httpd port passthru in the
> firewall.
>
>
> On Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 9:19:22 AM UTC-5, P P Gobind Chandra
> Praharaj wrote:
>>
>> I have set-up all prerequisites and all the installation required for
>> local reviewboard along with rb-site, server is apache httpd with mod_wsi.
>>
>>
>> Can any one help me on how to access the review bpoard which I have
>> installed locally from different systems via web browser.
>>
>>
>> Below are the steps detailed:
>>
>>
>>
>>1. yum -y install zlib zlib-devel
>>2. yum -y install openssl-devel
>>3. yum -y install memcached
>>4. yum -y install python-devel
>>5.  yum -y install python-setuptools
>>6. yum -y install patch easy_install
>>7.  mysql-python yum -y install git-core
>>8. easy_install ReviewBoard
>>9. *rb-site install /var/www/ReviewBoard*
>>
>>
>> *Steps followed during Installing rb-site*
>>
>>
>>-  Domain name localhost:80
>>-  Root Path : reviews
>>- And other configurations are default.
>>
>>
>> All steps are executed successfully.
>>
>>
>> But I do not know how can I access the review board over browser.
>>
>> Please help me?
>>
> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "reviewboard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What version of the Django suits with ReviewBoard? 1146, "Table 'reviewboard.auth_user' doesn't exist")

[Stephen Gallagher]

On CentOS 7, you will have a much easier time if you follow the
instructions at
https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/manual/dev/admin/installation/linux/#if-you-re-running-centos-red-hat-etc

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 11:58 PM Cui Fisher  wrote:

> pip install logs
>
>
>
> In file included from /usr/include/stdint.h:25:0,
>  from
> /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.5/include/stdint.h:9,
>  from src/RIPEMD160.c:48:
> /usr/include/features.h:168:0: note: this is the location of the
> previous definition
>  # define _POSIX_C_SOURCE 200809L
>  ^
> In file included from /usr/include/python2.7/pyconfig.h:6:0,
>  from /usr/include/python2.7/Python.h:8,
>  from src/RIPEMD160.c:57:
> /usr/include/python2.7/pyconfig-64.h:1204:0: warning: "_XOPEN_SOURCE"
> redefined [enabled by default]
>  #define _XOPEN_SOURCE 600
>  ^
> In file included from /usr/include/stdint.h:25:0,
>  from
> /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.5/include/stdint.h:9,
>  from src/RIPEMD160.c:48:
> /usr/include/features.h:170:0: note: this is the location of the
> previous definition
>  # define _XOPEN_SOURCE 700
>  ^
> gcc -pthread -shared -Wl,-z,relro
> build/temp.linux-x86_64-2.7/src/RIPEMD160.o -L/usr/lib64 -lpython2.7 -o
> build/lib.linux-x86_64-2.7/Crypto/Hash/_RIPEMD160.so
> building 'Crypto.Cipher._AES' extension
> gcc -pthread -fno-strict-aliasing -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
> -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4
> -grecord-gcc-switches -m64 -mtune=generic -D_GNU_SOURCE -fPIC -fwrapv -pipe
> -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong
> --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -m64 -mtune=generic
> -D_GNU_SOURCE -fPIC -fwrapv -fPIC -std=c99 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -Isrc/
> -I/usr/include/python2.7 -c src/AES.c -o
> build/temp.linux-x86_64-2.7/src/AES.o
> In file included from /usr/include/python2.7/pyconfig.h:6:0,
>  from /usr/include/python2.7/Python.h:8,
>  from src/AES.c:29:
> /usr/include/python2.7/pyconfig-64.h:1182:0: warning:
> "_POSIX_C_SOURCE" redefined [enabled by default]
>  #define _POSIX_C_SOURCE 200112L
>  ^
> In file included from /usr/include/assert.h:36:0,
>  from src/AES.c:27:
> /usr/include/features.h:168:0: note: this is the location of the
> previous definition
>  # define _POSIX_C_SOURCE 200809L
>  ^
> In file included from /usr/include/python2.7/pyconfig.h:6:0,
>  from /usr/include/python2.7/Python.h:8,
>  from src/AES.c:29:
> /usr/include/python2.7/pyconfig-64.h:1204:0: warning: "_XOPEN_SOURCE"
> redefined [enabled by default]
>  #define _XOPEN_SOURCE 600
>  ^
> In file included from /usr/include/assert.h:36:0,
>  from src/AES.c:27:
> /usr/include/features.h:170:0: note: this is the location of the
> previous definition
>  # define _XOPEN_SOURCE 700
>  ^
> gcc -pthread -shared -Wl,-z,relro
> build/temp.linux-x86_64-2.7/src/AES.o -L/usr/lib64 -lpython2.7 -o
> build/lib.linux-x86_64-2.7/Crypto/Cipher/_AES.so
> building 'Crypto.Cipher._ARC2' extension
> gcc -pthread -fno-strict-aliasing -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
> -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4
> -grecord-gcc-switches -m64 -mtune=generic -D_GNU_SOURCE -fPIC -fwrapv -pipe
> -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong
> --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -m64 -mtune=generic
> -D_GNU_SOURCE -fPIC -fwrapv -fPIC -std=c99 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -Isrc/
> -I/usr/include/python2.7 -c src/ARC2.c -o
> build/temp.linux-x86_64-2.7/src/ARC2.o
> In file included from /usr/include/python2.7/pyconfig.h:6:0,
>  from /usr/include/python2.7/Python.h:8,
>  from src/ARC2.c:45:
> /usr/include/python2.7/pyconfig-64.h:1182:0: warning:
> "_POSIX_C_SOURCE" redefined [enabled by default]
>  #define _POSIX_C_SOURCE 200112L
>  ^
> In file included from /usr/include/string.h:25:0,
>  from src/ARC2.c:44:
> /usr/include/features.h:168:0: note: this is the location of the
> previous definition
>  # define _POSIX_C_SOURCE 200809L
>  ^
> In file included from /usr/include/python2.7/pyconfig.h:6:0,
>  from /usr/include/python2.7/Python.h:8,
>  from src/ARC2.c:45:
> /usr/include/python2.7/pyconfig-64.h:1204:0: warning: "_XOPEN_SOURCE"
> redefined [enabled by default]
>  #define _XOPEN_SOURCE 600
>  ^
> In file included from /usr/include/string.h:25:0,
>  from src/ARC2.c:44:
> /usr/include/features.h:170:0: note: this is the location of the
> previous definition
>  # define _XOPEN_SOURCE 700
>  

Re: What version of the Django suits with ReviewBoard? 1146, "Table 'reviewboard.auth_user' doesn't exist")

[Stephen Gallagher]

Don't try to use the Django version shipped in EPEL 6, it's too old. EPEL 7
(For Red Hat Enterprise Linux/CentOS 7) has Django 1.6 which works with
ReviewBoard 2.5.

Or on EPEL 6, just remove the RPM packages entirely and install ReviewBoard
with pip.

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:04 AM Cui Fisher  wrote:

>  What version of the Django suits with ReviewBoard?
>  What version of the MySQL-python suits with ReviewBoard?
>
>
> centos 6.5
> httpd-2.2.15-53.el6.centos.x86_64
> Python 2.6.6
> import django
> >>> print django.VERSION
> (1, 4, 21, 'final', 0)
>
> pip-1.5.4.
> setuptools-24.0.2
>
> yum -y install mysql-server   (mysql-server-5.1.73-7.el6.x86_64)
> yum -y install MySQL-python  (MySQL-python-1.2.3-0.3.c1.1.el6.x86_64)
>
>
> I have been test:
> pip install ReviewBoard   (ReviewBoard-2.5.6.1-py2-none-any.whl)
> pip install ReviewBoard-2.5.6-py2-none-any.whl
>
> yum install ReviewBoard
> 
> Django14.noarch0:1.4.21-1.el6
> MySQL-python.x86_640:1.2.3-0.3.c1.1.el6
> freetype.x86_640:2.3.11-17.el6
> gnutls.x86_640:2.8.5-19.el6_7
> libjpeg-turbo.x86_640:1.2.1-3.el6_5
> libproxy.x86_640:0.3.0-10.el6
> libproxy-bin.x86_640:0.3.0-10.el6
> libproxy-python.x86_640:0.3.0-10.el6
> mercurial.x86_640:1.4-4.el6
> neon.x86_640:0.29.3-3.el6_4
> pakchois.x86_640:0.4-3.2.el6
> patchutils.x86_640:0.3.1-3.1.el6
> perl-URI.noarch0:1.40-2.el6
> postgresql-libs.x86_640:8.4.20-6.el6
> pysvn.x86_640:1.7.6-1.el6
> python-crypto.x86_640:2.0.1-22.el6
> python-dateutil.noarch0:1.4.1-6.el6
> python-django-evolution.noarch1:0.6.9-4.el6
> python-django-pipeline.noarch0:1.2.24-2.el6
> python-djblets.noarch0:0.7.30-2.el6
> python-docutils.noarch0:0.6-1.el6
> python-feedparser.noarch0:5.1.2-2.el6
> python-flup.noarch0:1.0.2-2.el6
> python-imaging.x86_640:1.1.6-19.el6
> python-markdown.noarch0:2.0.1-3.1.el6
> python-memcached.noarch0:1.43-6.el6
> python-mimeparse.noarch0:0.1.4-1.el6
> python-nose.noarch0:0.10.4-3.1.el6
> python-odict.noarch0:1.5.0-4.el6
> python-paramiko.noarch0:1.7.5-2.1.el6
> python-ply.noarch0:3.4-4.el6
> python-psycopg2.x86_640:2.0.14-2.el6
> python-pygments.noarch0:1.1.1-1.el6
> python-recaptcha-client.noarch0:1.0.6-4.el6
> python-simplejson.x86_640:2.0.9-3.1.el6
> python-slimit.noarch0:0.8.1-1.el6.1
> pytz.noarch0:2010h-2.el6
> subversion.x86_640:1.6.11-15.el6_7
> 
>
> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "reviewboard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: RB, SVN, and AD

[Stephen Gallagher]

I don't have time to work on such a patch directly, but I'd be happy to
lend my Kerberos experience towards reviewing any such patch. I think that
would be a very useful feature.

I'd recommend working on full SPNEGO support rather than a
Kerberos-specific solution. Take a look at the python-gssapi package; it
should do most of what is needed.
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 7:00 PM Christian Hammond 
wrote:

> Hi Cathy,
>
> Would you or someone on your end who has a familiarity with Python and
> Kerberos be willing to work with us on adding support? Review Board is open
> source, and I'd be willing to take a patch and assist with any work toward
> it.
>
> Christian
>
>
> On Tuesday, June 28, 2016, Cathy Mullican  wrote:
>
>> It looks like RB isn't using (doesn't support?) kerberos authentication,
>> and that seems to be necessary for the set up we have.
>>
>> Sadly, this may mean we can't use RB at this time. :(
>>
>> On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 5:22:17 PM UTC-7, Cathy Mullican wrote:
>>>
>>> Since it is working on the command line at this point, my money would be
>>> on #2 rather than #1.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://serverfault.com/questions/183231/how-to-configure-review-board-running-under-linux-to-use-a-ldap-user
>>>
>>> is the most relevant-seeming info I've found so far, but enough has
>>> changed in the 5+ years since it was posted that applying the info there is
>>> not entirely straightforward. (Recreating a .subversion/auth tree is
>>> relatively straightforward; figuring out the LDAP auth configuration, less
>>> so.)
>>>
>>> On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 4:44:57 PM UTC-7, Christian Hammond wrote:

 Okay. So it's probably one of two things:

 1) Something is still messed up somewhere with the recompilation. I
 don't know what, and can't really debug that from here.

 2) The standard way of authenticating that we do doesn't support your
 setup.

 It could easily be #2. We must be able to authenticate to the
 Subversion server using a username and password (or anonymously). If this
 is going through some alternative method for authentication, then it may
 require additional support in Review Board.

 Christian

 --
 Christian Hammond
 President/CEO of Beanbag 
 Makers of Review Board 

 On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Cathy Mullican 
 wrote:

> The server is VisualSVN (paid edition), with Windows AD
> authentication.  The server where RB is running is joined to the domain,
> and I can authenticate from the command line. Most users connect via
> TortoiseSVN on their Windows systems; I also have one other Ubuntu box
> configured so that i can join the domain, authenticate with kinit, and run
> svn from the command line.
>
> On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 3:43:19 PM UTC-7, Christian Hammond wrote:
>>
>> Hi Cathy,
>>
>> Progress is good! I think I'll need more info on your setup at this
>> point though.
>>
>> Can you tell me more about how authentication works on your
>> Subversion setup? From the client's end, is it a standard
>> username/password, or is more involved?
>>
>> What does the server setup look like?
>>
>> The error message shown there ("Error running context: An error
>> occurred during authentication") is coming from Subversion itself.
>>
>> Christian
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Christian Hammond
>> President/CEO of Beanbag 
>> Makers of Review Board 
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Cathy Mullican 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> OK, it definitely works better when you don't accidentally skip a
>>> step!
>>>
>>> I can now successfully do svn info from the command line, but I
>>> still can't create the repo in RB. The error message in the log is now:
>>>
>>> 2016-06-27 17:00:00,253 - ERROR -  - SVN: Failed to get repository
>>> information for https://az-fs1.revshare.int/svn/rad: Unable to
>>> connect to a repository at URL 'https://az-fs1.revshare.int/svn/rad'
>>> Error running context: An error occurred during authentication
>>>
>>> No more ra_serf error, so that's progress, at least! But also
>>> nothing very informative, at least to my eye.
>>>
>>> On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 9:45:50 AM UTC-7, Cathy Mullican wrote:

 I did
 apt-get source python-svn
 then started trying to follow the directions in INSTALL.html, but
 they didn't work at all...although lookin gback now, some of that may 
 have
 been because it was Friday afternoon and I missed something; I'm trying
 again now.

 On Friday, June 24, 2016 at 5:44:51 PM UTC-7, Christian Hammond
 

Re: New Review Request Page is not Opening

[Stephen Gallagher]

My guess would be SELinux; if the directory you moved it to isn't on
SELinux's list of "places the web server is allowed to read", that could be
interfering. Or you could have forgotten to set the
"httpd_can_network_memcached" Boolean.

Try running "setenforce 0" as root and restating Apache. If it works, then
you are having an SELinux issue and we can help you resolve that (better to
fix it than disable SELinux).
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 2:24 AM Dany Kallery  wrote:

> HI Christian,
>
> both the pc's were installed via RPM packages and i took the backup of
> Reviewboard Home Folder and DB (Mysql) and restored it in the new PC. then
> i did rb-site upgrade 
> there is only one chane i made. the home directory location in the new
> review board pc is different than the old one. i am not sure because of
> this causing this problem rest of the sites and links are fine.
>
>
> On Friday, 24 June 2016 13:53:38 UTC+5:30, Dany Kallery wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Recently I have migrated my Reviewboard server one machine to another.
>> after started service I have noticed that the New Review request if we try
>> to create that page just shows blank. can someone help me to sort this
>> problem?
>>
>>
>> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "reviewboard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: It does not work when I change the directory permission(Manual server updates required)

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 8:15 AM Rory Gao <roryblu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Stephen, I disabled the selinux and it works.
>
>

Well, you *shouldn't* disable SELinux. You should figure out which SELinux
step you skipped and correct it, that way SELinux can help protect you.

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: It does not work when I change the directory permission(Manual server updates required)

[Stephen Gallagher]

Follow the directions in the manual for setting it up. My guess is that you
did not set the appropriate SELinux booleans or else you installed
ReviewBoard to a directory where Apache doesn't have SELinux access
permission.
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 12:42 AM Rory Gao  wrote:

> Dear,
>
> I installed the reviewboard on centos7 through 'yum -y install
> ReviewBoard', but I cannot access the website, it ask me to update the
> directory permission(Manual server updates required).
>
> But I have already updated the owner to 'apache' user(all the website
> directory), but the it still on the same page and ask me to update the
> permission.
>
> Anyone can help???
>
>
> Regards,
> Rory
>
> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "reviewboard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: rb-site upgrade fails with whoosh 2.5.7 on RHEL7/OL7

[Stephen Gallagher]

I've just submitted a corrected version of Review Board to the epel-testing
repository:

https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-2bab5ad96d

Please test it and provide it with positive or negative feedback (karma).
That will get it into the stable release faster. (note: the reason this
happened is that I made a mistake rebasing the patch for the dependencies
and no one ever tested the update, so it went stable after the timeout
period. Please help test this one!)


On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 7:14 PM Stephen Gallagher <step...@gallagherhome.com>
wrote:

> I thought I had fixed the mime parse thing already. I'll correct that when
> I fix up the whoosh thing tomorrow.
>
> I'm a comaintainer of Whoosh on the other branches, so I can push the
> updated version. I just wanted to check with the other maintainers in case
> there was a compatibility break I need to be aware of.
>
> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 7:11 PM Vlad <thev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Stephen,
>>
>> Thank you for the reply. Also there is another issue with
>> "mimeparse>=0.1.3" requirement. Somehow it works only once changed to
>> "python-mimeparse>=0.1.3". RHEL has proper 0.1.4 version though another
>> package name.
>>
>> I tried to contact python-whoosh rpm maintainer and got email error:
>>
>>  - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -
>> rku...@mail.corp.redhat.com
>> (reason: 554 5.4.6 Too many hops)
>> (expanded from: <rku...@redhat.com>)
>> ..
>>
>> It might be he left Redhat and does not maintain the rpm anymore. I tried
>> to build newer rpm just by replacing Version to 2.7.4 in .spec file and new
>> sources. It builds ok. Not sure how to promote the spec file change.
>>
>> /v
>>
>> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 1:58 AM, Stephen Gallagher <
>> step...@gallagherhome.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry Vlad, that's my fault. I didn't notice the upgraded requirement.
>>> I'm going to try to get Whoosh updates in EPEL7 on Monday (once I talk to
>>> the maintainer of that package to figure out if they held it to the older
>>> version intentionally).
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 7:01 PM Vlad <thev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Christian,
>>>>
>>>> Would this hack affect only Search (Indexed search) function of
>>>> ReviewBoard? Search is not configured by default, so this
>>>> is not a strict dependency as I understand. Am I correct?
>>>>
>>>> I am not sure why RHEL7 has no whoosh update, so I did not install
>>>> whoosh with pip.
>>>>
>>>> /v
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 12:48 AM, Christian Hammond <
>>>> christ...@beanbaginc.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Vlad,
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't speak for the RPMs, but Review Board itself requires Whoosh
>>>>> 2.6+. There are bugs in prior versions that impact Review Board, so while
>>>>> you may be able to change the dependencies, I can't guarantee it'll fully
>>>>> work as expected.
>>>>>
>>>>> Christian
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Christian Hammond
>>>>> President/CEO of Beanbag <https://www.beanbaginc.com/>
>>>>> Makers of Review Board <https://www.reviewboard.org/>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Vlad S. <thev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi, upgrading 2.5.3 -> 2.5.4 on RHEL7 fails:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> # rb-site upgrade /var/www/rb.site.internal
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> File "/usr/bin/rb-site", line 5, in 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> from pkg_resources import load_entry_point
>>>>>>
>>>>>> File
>>>>>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/distribute-0.6.19-py2.7.egg/pkg_resources.py",
>>>>>> line 2713, in 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> parse_requirements(__requires__), Environment()
>>>>>>
>>>>>> File
>>>>>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/distribute-0.6.19-py2.7.egg/pkg_resources.py",
>>>>>> line 584, in resolve
>>>>>>
>>>>>> raise DistributionNotFound(req)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> pkg_resources.DistributionNotFound: W

Re: rb-site upgrade fails with whoosh 2.5.7 on RHEL7/OL7

[Stephen Gallagher]

I thought I had fixed the mime parse thing already. I'll correct that when
I fix up the whoosh thing tomorrow.

I'm a comaintainer of Whoosh on the other branches, so I can push the
updated version. I just wanted to check with the other maintainers in case
there was a compatibility break I need to be aware of.

On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 7:11 PM Vlad <thev...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Stephen,
>
> Thank you for the reply. Also there is another issue with
> "mimeparse>=0.1.3" requirement. Somehow it works only once changed to
> "python-mimeparse>=0.1.3". RHEL has proper 0.1.4 version though another
> package name.
>
> I tried to contact python-whoosh rpm maintainer and got email error:
>
>  - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -
> rku...@mail.corp.redhat.com
> (reason: 554 5.4.6 Too many hops)
> (expanded from: <rku...@redhat.com>)
> ..
>
> It might be he left Redhat and does not maintain the rpm anymore. I tried
> to build newer rpm just by replacing Version to 2.7.4 in .spec file and new
> sources. It builds ok. Not sure how to promote the spec file change.
>
> /v
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 1:58 AM, Stephen Gallagher <
> step...@gallagherhome.com> wrote:
>
>> Sorry Vlad, that's my fault. I didn't notice the upgraded requirement.
>> I'm going to try to get Whoosh updates in EPEL7 on Monday (once I talk to
>> the maintainer of that package to figure out if they held it to the older
>> version intentionally).
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 7:01 PM Vlad <thev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Christian,
>>>
>>> Would this hack affect only Search (Indexed search) function of
>>> ReviewBoard? Search is not configured by default, so this
>>> is not a strict dependency as I understand. Am I correct?
>>>
>>> I am not sure why RHEL7 has no whoosh update, so I did not install
>>> whoosh with pip.
>>>
>>> /v
>>>
>>> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 12:48 AM, Christian Hammond <
>>> christ...@beanbaginc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Vlad,
>>>>
>>>> I can't speak for the RPMs, but Review Board itself requires Whoosh
>>>> 2.6+. There are bugs in prior versions that impact Review Board, so while
>>>> you may be able to change the dependencies, I can't guarantee it'll fully
>>>> work as expected.
>>>>
>>>> Christian
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Christian Hammond
>>>> President/CEO of Beanbag <https://www.beanbaginc.com/>
>>>> Makers of Review Board <https://www.reviewboard.org/>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Vlad S. <thev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi, upgrading 2.5.3 -> 2.5.4 on RHEL7 fails:
>>>>>
>>>>> # rb-site upgrade /var/www/rb.site.internal
>>>>>
>>>>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>>>>>
>>>>> File "/usr/bin/rb-site", line 5, in 
>>>>>
>>>>> from pkg_resources import load_entry_point
>>>>>
>>>>> File
>>>>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/distribute-0.6.19-py2.7.egg/pkg_resources.py",
>>>>> line 2713, in 
>>>>>
>>>>> parse_requirements(__requires__), Environment()
>>>>>
>>>>> File
>>>>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/distribute-0.6.19-py2.7.egg/pkg_resources.py",
>>>>> line 584, in resolve
>>>>>
>>>>> raise DistributionNotFound(req)
>>>>>
>>>>> pkg_resources.DistributionNotFound: Whoosh>=2.6
>>>>>
>>>>> # rpm -qa|grep -i whoosh
>>>>>
>>>>> python-whoosh-2.5.7-4.el7.noarch
>>>>>
>>>>> # rpm -qa|grep -i reviewboard
>>>>>
>>>>> ReviewBoard-2.5.4-1.el7.noarch
>>>>>
>>>>> RHEL7 (epel) has no whoosh 2.6+ and ReviewBoard does not requires
>>>>> exactly this version.. Shall I just fix ReviewBoard
>>>>> /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.7.egg-info/requires.txt
>>>>>  to
>>>>> pass the rb-site upgrade?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
>>>>> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
>>>>> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
>>>>> https://rbcommons.com/
>>

Re: Review Board 2.0.23 and 2.5.4 are out, with security fixes and other improvements

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 6:03 PM Christian Hammond 
wrote:

> Hey everyone,
>
> We just put out releases of Review Board 2.0.23 and 2.5.4. These include a
> number of bug fixes and improvements, along with some security fixes for
> self-XSS vulnerabilities.
>
> There's a write-up about this on our announcement:
>
>
> https://www.reviewboard.org/news/2016/04/13/review-board-2-0-23--2-5-4-released-security-fixes-and-more/
>
> If you sign up for our mailing list, you'll also get the full
> announcements delivered to you when there's  new release:
>
> https://www.reviewboard.org/mailing-lists/
>
> Christian
>
>
Packages for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7, CentOS 7 and compatible
distributions will be available in the epel-testing repository as soon as
your local mirror synchronizes.

Or you can download the packages directly here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-1036441cdb

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: RBTool config

[Stephen Gallagher]

Well, the obvious question is: what source code version-control system are
you using, and are you currently in that directory?

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 12:04 AM thanga durai 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have recently installed bitnami-reviewboard-2.5.2-1, which is working
> fine.
>
> But I'm not able to us RBtool to post a review...When I use a RBtool
>
> ERROR: The current directory does not contain a checkout from a supported
> source code repository.
>
>
> Looking for support...
>
>
> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "reviewboard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Unable to open reviewboard site

[Stephen Gallagher]

Check that you followed every step on
https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/manual/dev/admin/installation/creating-sites/#apache

(See also the patch https://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/7783/diff/2#0 which
has more information and better formatting for those instructions).

I suspect you're hitting SELinux denials here, which that page tells you
how to fix.



On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:11 AM Divakar K  wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I am new to reviewboard. today i setup in my machine(centos7) and tried to
> open. but it showing the attached error page. changed all the directories
> ownership to apache:apache. but still i couldnt.
>
> Can someone please help?
>
>
> [root@localhost conf.d]# ls -lrt /var/www/reviews.example.com/
> total 0
> drwxrwxrwx. 2 apache apache  6 Feb  7 16:43 tmp
> drwxr-xr-x. 2 apache apache  6 Feb  7 16:43 logs
> drwxr-xr-x. 2 apache apache  6 Feb  7 16:43 data
> drwxr-xr-x. 2 apache apache 94 Feb  7 16:43 conf
> drwxr-xr-x. 4 apache apache 70 Feb  7 17:11 htdocs
>
>
> Thanks & Regards,
> Divakar
>
>
>
> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "reviewboard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Invalid HTTP_HOST header Emails

[Stephen Gallagher]

Another alternative would be to set up mod_rewrite so that requests to the
IP address are externally redirected to the hostname (which is probably a
necessity if you're using HTTPS anyhow).

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 5:35 PM Christian Hammond 
wrote:

> Hi Mike,
>
> We don't (currently) use Django's logging settings, so that can't be
> disabled the same way. There might be a way to turn off the behavior in a
> more specific way, but I don't know it (I haven't seen this come up yet so
> I haven't looked into it).
>
> Is there anything in your Apache logs that correspond to these access
> times that can help point you to what's accessing the server with that IP?
>
> Alternatively, you could add the IP to ALLOWED_HOSTS.
>
> Christian
>
> --
> Christian Hammond - christ...@beanbaginc.com
> Review Board - https://www.reviewboard.org
> Beanbag, Inc. - https://www.beanbaginc.com
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Mike Baker 
> wrote:
>
>> I've been getting the odd email from my Review Board install.
>>
>> *Subject:*
>> [Review Board] ERROR: Invalid HTTP_HOST header: ''.You may
>> need to add u'' to ALLOWED_HOSTS.
>>
>> *Body:*
>> No stack trace available
>>
>> Request repr() unavailable.
>>
>>
>> In this example  is my servers IP address.
>>
>> The email gets sent at really odd and infrequent intervals (1-3 times per
>> day). A little Googling around seems to indicate the issue is that someone
>> (or something) is trying to access my server directly by IP rather than
>> using the domain name(s).
>>
>> Looking at this SO post it seems I can disable the logging in the Django
>> settings but I'm usure of where those are in the RB installation. Can
>> anyone point me in the right direction?
>>
>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/22416027/invalid-http-host-header-in-django-1-6-2
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> --
>> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
>> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
>> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
>> https://rbcommons.com/
>> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "reviewboard" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "reviewboard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Install ReviewBoard manually from a package?

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016, 3:40 PM   wrote:

> Is there a way to install ReviewBoard manually from a package? I want to
> install it on a linux redhat server but it's doesn't have access outside
> the network. Please advise. Thanks!
>



I maintain a set of Review Board RPMS in the EPEL project. You can download
them and their dependencies and install them offline.


https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL



-- 
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "reviewboard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Remote git server: No authentication methods available

[Stephen Gallagher]

>
>
>>
> *From:* revie...@googlegroups.com [mailto:revie...@googlegroups.com] *On
>> Behalf Of *Pierre Bouffard
>>
>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 27, 2016 11:50 AM
>> *To:* reviewboard
>> *Subject:* Re: Remote git server: No authentication methods available
>>
>
>>
>> Hi Terry,
>>
>>
>>
>> We use file permissions by default and everyone can clone from git.  We
>> validate user's group on git push.
>>
>>
>>
>> The user "git" has read access to the repository.
>>
>>
>>
>> I can clone as this user (on the same machine running RB) without any
>> issues.
>>
>>
>>
>> # git clone ssh://git@**/gitrepo/** apps
>>
>> Cloning into 'apps'...
>>
>> git@**'s password: 
>>
>> remote: Counting objects: 708635, done.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>
>> This is the same user that I configured in RB.
>>
>>
>>
>> Note that the web server (apache) is running under the "apache" user
>> (RHEL 7).  I was initially thinking this is a SELinux issue - but it's set
>> to "permissive".
>>
>>
>>
Have you read through
https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/manual/2.5/admin/configuration/repositories/#ssh-backed-repositories
for
setting up SSH keys for the Review Board instance?

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: segmental fault when review board installation

[Stephen Gallagher]

OK, that looks like Apache or mod_wsgi experienced a segmentation fault
(crash). What operating system is this? RHEL/CentOS 7?

Could you attempt to get a backtrace of the crash so we can track it down?
Given that it's failing in Apache, I suspect that once we get the
backtrace, you'll want to file a bug with the OS tracker rather than here
with Review Board.


On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:15 AM lin chaun Lin 
wrote:

> hi:
>   i have install review board following offical document(
> https://www.reviewboard.org/get/instructions/?product=rb=educationlinux-rpm==
> ).
> however, when l go to the viewboard site, every now and then l get "
> ERR_EMPTY_RESPONSE". l peek the apache error log, the following is what l
> get :
>
>
> 
> how could l  find the cause?
>
> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "reviewboard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Testing Needed] Review Board 2.5.2 for RHEL/CentOS 7

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 10:18 AM Ken Erickson <dilber...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Done
>
> On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 4:19:50 AM UTC-7, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>>
>> Ken, Cian and Sean: since you have had positive experiences, would you
>> mind signing into Bodhi (instructions in the original message for this
>> thread) and providing positive karma? If all three of you did so, this can
>> go to the stable repo immediately. Otherwise, I have to wait until Friday
>> to push it without karma.
>
>

Thanks, folks! The Bodhi update now has sufficient karma and is being
pushed to the stable repositories. It should be available to all users
within 24 hours (as the mirrors sync).

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Testing Needed] Review Board 2.5.2 for RHEL/CentOS 7

[Stephen Gallagher]

Ken, Cian and Sean: since you have had positive experiences, would you mind
signing into Bodhi (instructions in the original message for this thread)
and providing positive karma? If all three of you did so, this can go to
the stable repo immediately. Otherwise, I have to wait until Friday to push
it without karma.
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 6:17 AM Stephen Gallagher <step...@gallagherhome.com>
wrote:

> I left that out intentionally, though I may add it as a Suggests:
> dependency (which is not installed by default but may be offered as a
> suggestion by the package manager). It isn't required for normal operation
> and it pulls in a lot of dependencies itself. In order to keep the install
> size small, I skipped it.
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 4:09 AM Cian Mc Govern <c...@cianmcgovern.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4 December 2015 at 16:18, Stephen Gallagher <step...@gallagherhome.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Hello, folks! It's time for a big update. As many of you are probably
>>> aware, I maintain the RPMs of Review Board that live in Fedora's EPEL
>>> project[1] (Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux).
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for your work on this Stephen. No complaints from me, both a clean
>> install and an upgrade worked without issue.
>>
>> One thing I noticed was that the ReviewBoard package doesn't require
>> uglify-js which is required when running 'rb-site manage /path/to/site
>> collectstatic'. It might be worth adding that in a future release, I
>> believe it's only a build dependency at the moment.
>>
>> --
>> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
>> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
>> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
>> https://rbcommons.com/
>> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "reviewboard" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Testing Needed] Review Board 2.5.2 for RHEL/CentOS 7

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 4:22 PM Ken Erickson  wrote:

> I just installed 2.5.2 on CentOS 7 for testing, other than comments below
> I haven't found anything.
> I do have a question, I installed the Comment Categorization extension and
> added 4 types to it but when I try to use it the list is empty on review
> comments?  It acted the same under 2.0 as well.
>
>
Could you raise that in a separate thread? I suspect we'll need to hear
from the upstream developers, and I wouldn't be surprised if they were only
skimming this thread since it's about a downstream package.

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Testing Needed] Review Board 2.5.2 for RHEL/CentOS 7

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 11:21 AM Stephen Gallagher <step...@gallagherhome.com>
wrote:

> Hmm, I thought I fixed that version. I'll push an update immediately. If
> you manually run `yum update python-django-evolution
> --enablerepo=epel-testing` and then attempt the upgrade, does that resolve
> your upgrade issue? What version of django-evolution do you have right now?
> 0.7.5?
>
>>
>>

Hmm, looks like it should have at least been requiring 0.7.5, not 0.7.1.
Was that a typo or were you looking at the 2.0.18 requirement?

Anyway, I'm building an updated version that explicitly requires
django-evolution 0.7.6.

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Testing Needed] Review Board 2.5.2 for RHEL/CentOS 7

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 10:29 AM Paul Fee <paul.f@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Stephen,
>
> That's great news, I had been wondering if Fedora/RHEL users would be
> seeing RB2.5 soon.
>
> On Fedora, it looks like the Django packages have moved ahead to 1.8, but
> RB still needs 1.6.  Hence ReviewBoard has disappeared from Fedora from F22
> onwards :(
>
>
Yeah, I've dropped it from the official repositories. I *had* been
maintaining it as a separate COPR repository that contains an old version
of Django, but honestly no one seems to actually be using it.
Realistically, I think people just prefer to deploy something important
like Review Board atop RHEL or CentOS rather than Fedora, and since
packaging it on Fedora is basically impossible at this time (not including
deployment via Docker or similar), it just isn't worth the effort to
maintain there.



> Nice to see that the situation on RHEL+EPEL is better.  For users on that
> platform, what can we expect when installing the upgrade?  If I already
> have a 2.0.18 installation and a site populated with users/reviews/comments
> etc. will this migrate without effort up to RB 2.5.2 or is anything else
> required, e.g. database backup/restore?
>
>
The expected behavior is that all existing reviews, users, repositories and
everything else should remain after the upgrade. That being said, if you
are upgrading to a new major release and do NOT do a full backup to be on
the safe side, you have made a grave error in judgement.

Also, as I said in the initial email: this is currently in the testing
repository precisely to catch any such issues before it goes to stable and
everyone running Review Board picks it up on their next yum update. So if
there are bugs preventing the trivial upgrade, let's get them identified
and fixed before I push this to the stable repo.

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Testing Needed] Review Board 2.5.2 for RHEL/CentOS 7

[Stephen Gallagher]

Hmm, I thought I fixed that version. I'll push an update immediately. If
you manually run `yum update python-django-evolution
--enablerepo=epel-testing` and then attempt the upgrade, does that resolve
your upgrade issue? What version of django-evolution do you have right now?
0.7.5?

On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 11:17 AM <s...@m2mobi.com> wrote:

> Hello Stephen,
>
> I've been patiently waiting for this for weeks now. Glad to see it's
> getting close.
>
> Some issues I found upgrading from EPEL 2.0.18:
>
> The RPM requires: python-django-evolution >= 0.7.1
>
> ReviewBoard requires: django-evolution>=0.7.6,<=0.7.999
>
>
> *and during the rb-site upgrade I get the following message:*
>
> --  --
>
> Creating tables ...
>
> Creating table accounts_trophy
>
> Creating table attachments_fileattachmenthistory
>
> Creating table diffviewer_rawfilediffdata
>
> Creating table notifications_webhooktarget_repositories
>
> Creating table notifications_webhooktarget
>
> Creating table webapi_webapitoken
>
> Upgrading Review Board from 2.0.18 to 2.5.2
>
> There are unapplied evolutions for accounts.
>
> There are unapplied evolutions for attachments.
>
> There are unapplied evolutions for diffviewer.
>
> There are unapplied evolutions for notifications.
>
> There are unapplied evolutions for reviews.
>
> There are unapplied evolutions for webapi.
>
> Adding baseline version for new models
>
> Evolutions in notifications baseline: webhooktarget_extra_state,
> webhooktarget_extra_data_null
>
> Project signature has changed - an evolution is required
>
> Installing custom SQL ...
>
> Installing indexes ...
>
> Installed 0 object(s) from 0 fixture(s)
>
> Evolution successful.
>
> ---  ---
>
>
> *the next run reduces this to:*
>
>
> --  --
>
> Creating tables ...
>
> There are unapplied evolutions for webapi.
>
> Installing custom SQL ...
>
> Installing indexes ...
>
> Installed 0 object(s) from 0 fixture(s)
>
> No evolution required.
>
> ---  ---
>
>
> However many times I run the upgrade though, the 'unapplied evolutions for
> webapi' persist and the webpage keeps reporting 2.0.18 as the version.
>
>
> System: CentOS 7
>
> Webserver: Nginx
>
> On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 1:05:06 AM UTC+1, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>>
>> Hello, folks! It's time for a big update. As many of you are probably
>> aware, I maintain the RPMs of Review Board that live in Fedora's EPEL
>> project[1] (Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux).
>>
>> For some time now, EPEL 7 (which provides community-supported add-on
>> software for RHEL 7 and CentOS 7) has been providing Review Board 2.0.x
>> packages. However, time passes and I now feel that it's worth upgrading
>> EPEL 7 to carry 2.5.2 with all of the enhancements and bugfixes that this
>> entails.
>>
>> This is a pretty major update to the server-side of things, so I'd really
>> like to get some serious testing performed if possible before I push this
>> out to the stable repository. (Getting testing for updates has been a
>> problem in the past, which is why updates tend to trail the upstream
>> releases by at least two weeks; EPEL has a policy that it must remain in
>> the testing repository for at least that time unless it receives positive
>> feedback from people testing it).
>>
>> So, how can you help? The simplest way to do so would be to install the
>> new RPMs on your RHEL/CentOS 7 systems by installing the EPEL 7 repository
>> and then running:
>> `yum install --enablerepo=epel-testing ReviewBoard` or `yum update
>> --enablerepo=epel-testing ReviewBoard` if you have an existing
>> installation. (Note: this was just submitted for the testing repository, so
>> it may take up to 48 hours to reach your local mirror, though usually less
>> than 24).
>>
>> Then play around with it; test that it upgrades cleanly and that you can
>> create new sites in your preferred configuration. Once you have feedback to
>> provide (positive *or* negative), please create a Fedora Account at
>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/ and then log in at
>> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-b8671a8638 and
>> use the feedback buttons and comment field to let me know how it went.
>>
>> Warning: if I get no feedback at all, I'm just going to push this to
>> stable at the end of two weeks, so if you don't want any surprises at your
>> next stable update, please 

Re: Database upgrade from 1.7.27 to 2.5.2

[Stephen Gallagher]

Did you run this with the recent django-evolution 0.7.6 update? That
specifically addresses some upgrade issues unique to MySQL.

On Mon, Dec 7, 2015, 9:40 PM rfs  wrote:

> Some additional information after further experimentation:
>
> * I tried upgrading from the same 1.7.27 database to 2.0.18. This worked
> perfectly fine. I ran compressdiffs afterwards as suggested, that worked
> too.
> * I then tried upgrading from 2.0.18 to 2.5.2, but got the same "Can't
> create table 'reviewboard.#'" error.
>
> Next I scripted the upgrade from 1.7.27 to 2.5.2, and tried a few
> variations, including location of the database, etc.
> The process is:
> 1) Create empty database
> 2) Restore my 1.7.27 database
> 3) Run rb-site upgrade
>
> That reliably triggers the "Can't create table" error. However, if I add
> one step:
> 1) Create empty database
> 1.5) Run rb-site install
> 2) Restore my 1.7.27 database
> 3) Run rb-site upgrade
>
> Then the "Can't create table" error is avoided, and it manages to apply
> many django evolutions. Eventually it fails with:
> CommandError: Error applying evolution: (1050, "Table
> 'reviews_reviewrequest_file_attachment_histories' already exists")
> which is not entirely unexpected since I ran rb-site install which likely
> created that table.
>
> I am using mariadb-5.5.44 on CentOS 7.1.
>
> -Ralph
>
> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "reviewboard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Testing Needed] Review Board 2.5.2 for RHEL/CentOS 7

[Stephen Gallagher]

Hello, folks! It's time for a big update. As many of you are probably
aware, I maintain the RPMs of Review Board that live in Fedora's EPEL
project[1] (Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux).

For some time now, EPEL 7 (which provides community-supported add-on
software for RHEL 7 and CentOS 7) has been providing Review Board 2.0.x
packages. However, time passes and I now feel that it's worth upgrading
EPEL 7 to carry 2.5.2 with all of the enhancements and bugfixes that this
entails.

This is a pretty major update to the server-side of things, so I'd really
like to get some serious testing performed if possible before I push this
out to the stable repository. (Getting testing for updates has been a
problem in the past, which is why updates tend to trail the upstream
releases by at least two weeks; EPEL has a policy that it must remain in
the testing repository for at least that time unless it receives positive
feedback from people testing it).

So, how can you help? The simplest way to do so would be to install the new
RPMs on your RHEL/CentOS 7 systems by installing the EPEL 7 repository and
then running:
`yum install --enablerepo=epel-testing ReviewBoard` or `yum update
--enablerepo=epel-testing ReviewBoard` if you have an existing
installation. (Note: this was just submitted for the testing repository, so
it may take up to 48 hours to reach your local mirror, though usually less
than 24).

Then play around with it; test that it upgrades cleanly and that you can
create new sites in your preferred configuration. Once you have feedback to
provide (positive *or* negative), please create a Fedora Account at
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/ and then log in at
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-b8671a8638 and use
the feedback buttons and comment field to let me know how it went.

Warning: if I get no feedback at all, I'm just going to push this to stable
at the end of two weeks, so if you don't want any surprises at your next
stable update, please help me out here.


[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: rb-site install fails on RedHat EL 7 with "Site matching query does not exist"

[Stephen Gallagher]

I plan to look into the EPEL 7 packages when I get back from holiday on
Monday. I'll be upgrading EPEL 7 to Review Board 2.5 as well.

I'm not sure of the specific issue you're seeing, but I will be testing new
deployments.

Could you at least identify the database you are using?

On Thu, Nov 26, 2015, 12:17 PM Vikrant Gatne 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am trying to do a fresh installation for ReviewBoard on a RedHat EL 7
> VM. I could successfully install the ReviewBoard 2.0.11 with 'yum install
> ReviewBoard' after getting the EPEL package repositories. But my attempt to
> create a review board site fails with the following error -
> "django,contrib.sites.models.DoesNotExist: Site matching query does not
> exist." If I query the database, I can see quite a few tables have been
> created by the installation process. The table names relevant to the error
> are as follows
>
> site_localsite
> site_localsite_admins
> site_localsite_users
> siteconfig_siteconfiguration
>
> But none of these tables contain any data in it. Not sure what's wrong.
> Any help will be highly appreciated on this.
>
> Cheers,
> Vik
>
> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "reviewboard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Any success upgrading RHEL 6, Centos 6, or Fedora 15- from ReviewBoard 1.7.x to 2.0.20

[Stephen Gallagher]

I'd personally recommend moving to a CentOS 7 host and my EPEL 7 RPMs,
which has 2.0.x today and will have 2.5.x once it's released.
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 12:46 PM Chris Lang  wrote:

> Hey I am wondering if there are any success stories for this upgrade on
> older versions of these os'.
> I have a Fedora 15 vm and am wondering if it is worth it to try this
> upgrade or move to a newer vm altogether. Thanks.
>
> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "reviewboard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: LDAP Authentication

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:37 AM  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have tried to setup LDAP authentication, but in the log shows
>
> LDAP error: {'info': "TLS error -8179:Peer's Certificate issuer is not
> recognized.", 'desc': "Can't contact LDAP server"}
>
>
This error means exactly what it says: the SSL  certificate provided by the
LDAP server cannot be trusted. Because of this, the only safe thing for
Review Board to do is refuse to connect (because user passwords are sent in
the clear over LDAP, so if you can't trust that you're actually connected
to the right server, you might be leaking passwords to an attacker in a
MitM attack).

What you need to do is get the LDAP administrator to provide you a copy of
the public key of the CA that signed the LDAP server and then you need to
drop it in the appropriate place on your filesystem. If this is a
Fedora/RHEL/CentOS system, that would mean dropping it
in /etc/openldap/certs/ and then running
`cacertdir_rehash /etc/openldap/certs/`

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Getting this error Invalid command 'WSGIPassAuthorization on my Fedora 22...

[Stephen Gallagher]

How did you deploy Review Board? Did you use the RPM packages from
https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/sgallagh/f22-reviewboard/ or did you
use easy_install? Also, what version of Review Board is this? Lastly, can
you show me the exact error messages from apache?

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 7:18 AM Paresh Zawar  wrote:

> When I am trying to restart my apache service it is throwing an error as
> "Invalid command 'WSGIPassAuthorization". I have followed the steps from
> https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/manual/dev/admin/installation/creating-sites/#creating-sites
> review board site.
>
> Suggest me how to solve this error and I am using Fedora 22 Server
>
> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "reviewboard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.