Red Hat Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
|Summary:||Review Request: dogtail|
|Product:||[Fedora] Fedora||Reporter:||Elena Zannoni <ezannoni>|
|Component:||Package Review||Assignee:||David Cantrell <dcantrell>|
|Status:||CLOSED RAWHIDE||QA Contact:||Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>|
|Version:||rawhide||CC:||dmalcolm, fedora-package-review, kasal, rousseau, tkincaid, zcerza|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2006-08-04 08:44:52 EDT||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Bug Depends On:||200772|
|Bug Blocks:||188268, 198806|
Description Elena Zannoni 2006-07-31 11:02:53 EDT
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/zcerza/dogtail/ This is a request to move Dogtail from Extras to Core. The review for inclusion into Extras was done here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182306 Reason: Dogtail is needed by the frysk testsuite, and it run in headless mode at Frysk buildtime.
Comment 1 Jesse Keating 2006-07-31 11:10:44 EDT
Er, can I get a direct link to the spec and to a srpm build from said spec? That'll speed up the review.
Comment 2 Jesse Keating 2006-07-31 11:14:12 EDT
This will require pyspi to be in Core as well. Please open up a review to move this from Extras to Core and have it block this bug. We'll focus on pyspi first.
Comment 3 Elena Zannoni 2006-07-31 11:49:32 EDT
I can find these: http://people.redhat.com/zcerza/dogtail/releases/ but I wonder if there is anything newer. http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/extras/development/SRPMS/dogtail-0.5.1-4.fc6.src.rpm seems to be the most recent build. Please also see the old review for extras inclusion (bug 182306).
Comment 4 Jesse Keating 2006-07-31 14:37:39 EDT
Package looks good, rpmlint only has this to say: E: dogtail non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/dogtail/config.py 0644 E: dogtail non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/dogtail/tree.py 0644 These are due to #! being in these files. Are these files executable on their own, do they actually do anything? If not, remove the sha-bang. If so, than ignore this. W: dogtail macro-in-%changelog post Macros in changelog are usually unsafe as they'll get expanded. Other than that looks good, approving. Bill already gave tech ack, so who gets to own this? (and who will coordinate its removal from Extras)
Comment 5 Elena Zannoni 2006-07-31 14:53:17 EDT
Zack is the owner.
Comment 6 Zack Cerza 2006-07-31 18:12:52 EDT
tree.py and config.py don't really need to have the shebang line; I just removed them upstream. I didn't realize putting '%post' in the changelog would be a problem; I'll obscure that.
Comment 7 Paul Howarth 2006-08-01 07:49:11 EDT
(In reply to comment #6) > I didn't realize putting '%post' in the changelog would be a problem; I'll > obscure that. Just escape macros in the changelog (e.g. use %%post instead of %post) and you'll get the desired effect.
Comment 8 Zack Cerza 2006-08-01 17:43:12 EDT
dogtail just built successfully into FC-devel.
Comment 9 Zack Cerza 2006-08-02 15:22:46 EDT
How do I get dogtail removed from FC6's Extras?
Comment 10 Jesse Keating 2006-08-02 15:36:42 EDT
Comment 11 Zack Cerza 2006-08-02 16:21:27 EDT
Thanks. FWIW, though, it seems like the page should be called 'FE6Requests' or something.
Comment 12 Zack Cerza 2010-07-12 17:03:36 EDT
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: dogtail New Branches: EL-6 Owners: zmc
Comment 13 Tom "spot" Callaway 2010-07-13 11:37:15 EDT
CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).