Bug 444952
Summary: | Review Request: tlock - terminal lock | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | pjp <pj.pandit> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Mamoru TASAKA <mtasaka> |
Status: | CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | low | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, ivazqueznet, mtasaka, notting, rc040203 |
Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Reopened |
Target Release: | --- | Flags: | mtasaka:
fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+ |
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | 1.3-1.fc8 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2014-08-22 17:08:02 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
pjp
2008-05-02 09:45:13 UTC
This package suffers from several issues: 1. MUSTFIX: BuildRequires: ncurses is meaningless. You will want BuildRequires: ncurses-devel instead. Without it, this package doesn't build in mock at all. 2. MUSTFIX: Use %{_bindir}, %{_libdir}, %{_infodir}, %{_mandir} in %files instead of %_prefix/bin/tlock %_prefix/lib/* %_prefix/share/info/* %_prefix/share/man/* Additionally, using %_prefix/lib also breaks building this package on 64bit targets. 3. MUSTFIX: Source0: must be an URL pointing to the tarball (http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz) not a relative filename. 4. MUSTFIX: Library packaging: - Package ships static library. If you really want to ship it, package the *.a into a separate package. If not, disable building it (Append --disable-static to %configure) - Package ships *.la. Remove it in %install. 5. MUSTFIX: Devel files in base package. Your base package %{name} contains development files, which are not needed at run time. Either do not ship them at all or move them into a separate %{name}-devel subpackage 6. MUSTFIX: The info files are packaged incorrectly. Infos require special treatment in %post/%postun Check the FPG and/or how other packages do so. Hello Ralf, thank you so much for the comments. I've removed the first four glitches, and the new SRPM & Spec files are accessible at the above links, please have a look. In 5 MUSTFIX: When you say package %{name}, are you referring to the tlock source or the RPM? I'm not very sure how to go about this devel subpackage business. Is it just that, I create a new spec file for new rpm which will install the librpass.so & readpass.h files. And in the above RPM & spec file I only install the tlock binary along with its manual? Also could you please explain a bit more about 6 MUSTFIX? I didn't get what special treatment is required for info manuals. Thank you! 6 MUSTFIX is also fixed. Please see SPEC URL: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/tlock.spec SRPM URL: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/tlock-1.1-0.2.fc8.src.rpm Thank you! Some progress, but there still are several issues: * MUSTFIX: Wrong License-tag: Package is licensed GPLv2+ (GPL version 2 or later), not GPLv2. => License: GPLv2+ * MUSTFIX: devel libraries in base package. Split out the devel files into a *-devel subpackage. (Devel files: lib*.so, *.h, *.3) * MUSTFIX: rpm-versions are missing in you %changelog entries * SHOULD: Please remove the line referring to "GPLv2" from %description. It's redundant to License: and legally questionable, because the actual and legally binding licenses are those inlined into the sources. * SHOULD: Spec uses "make -s". We want to see messages when building rpms. make -s is not useful when building rpms. Side-note to you as upstream: sizeof(char) is always 1. Apart from implicit type-casts, constructs such as malloc(pass_len * sizeof(char)) are pretty meaningless. You will likely want to change the type of pass_len to size_t instead of unsigned int, instead. Ralf, once again thanks for the comments. :)
Well..all other things fixed, except the one below.
> * MUSTFIX: devel libraries in base package. Split out the devel files into
> a *-devel subpackage. (Devel files: lib*.so, *.h, *.3)
How should I go about creating this devel subpackage? I tried creating
two rpms one to intall tlock binary & it manual and other to install the
above devel files. But `rpmbuild' breaks with this message:
error: files installed but unpackaged
could you please explain a bit more about this?
Thanks!
Ralf, once again thanks for the comments. :) Well..all other things fixed, except the one below. Please see: SPEC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/tlock.spec SRPM: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/tlock-1.1-3.fc8.src.rpm > * MUSTFIX: devel libraries in base package. Split out the devel files into > a *-devel subpackage. (Devel files: lib*.so, *.h, *.3) How should I go about creating this devel subpackage? I tried creating two rpms, one to intall tlock binary & its manual and other to install the above devel files. But `rpmbuild' breaks with this message: error: files installed but unpackaged could you please explain a bit more about this? Thanks! Please see the latest files below, I've created the tlock-devel package to install the appropriate files. SPEC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/tlock.spec SRPM: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/tlock-1.1-4.fc8.src.rpm Ummn...one more thing is, I'm still looking for the sponsor. Any comments/thoughts about that? Thank you! I would be able to sponsor you, ... we're making progress, but we're not quite there: # rpmlint tlock*-1.1-4.fc8.x86_64.rpm tlock.x86_64: E: devel-dependency tlock-devel => You've got the dependencies reversed. tlock-devel should "Requires: tlock = %{version}-%{release}" You have tlock "Requires: tlock-devel" tlock.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized tlock is a terminal lock => This warning can be ignored. tlock.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Application/System => please check /usr/share/doc/rpm*/GROUPS and choose appropriate one. tlock.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 4 1.1-4.fc8 => The version numbers you choose in your %changelog do not match what Fedora expect. They need to be in the form "version-release", i.e. "1.1-4", instead of "4" tlock.x86_64: W: one-line-command-in-%postun /sbin/ldconfig => Can be ignored tlock-devel.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/librpass.so.0.0.0 tlock-devel.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/librpass.so.0.0.0 tlock-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on tlock These three are side-effects of the reversed dependencies between tlock and tlock-devel. They should resolve once you've got this sorted out. Further MUSTFIX, very closely related to the "tlock<->tlock-devel" deps issue: lib*.so.* should go into tlock lib*.so should go into tlock-devel Hey Ralf, thanks for the comments. The first error sounds quite strange to me. Because it is the tlock program that makes use of librpass library, and *not* the vice-versa; ie. When one tries to install tlock, librpass.so should already be there, installed, shouldn't it? Anyways..I've made the changes. Please see the latest files at: SPEC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/tlock.spec SRPM: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/tlock-1.1-5.fc8.src.rpm Thank you! Can't access the files:
> Forbidden
> You don't have permission to access /tools/tlock.spec on this server.
> Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an
ErrorDocument to handle the request.
Oops...! Really sorry for that. Please see again SPEC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/tlock.spec SRPM: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/tlock-1.1-5.fc8.src.rpm Thank you! There is still one major bug: Your *-devel contains this: Requires: %{name} = %{version} This doesn't work. It must be Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} Hey Ralf, Some of the spec files I came across did have just the name & version so I thought...anyways sorry for that. I've uploaded the new files at SPEC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/tlock.spec SRPM: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/tlock-1.1-6.fc8.src.rpm Thank you so much! Hello Ralf, Please see the latest files at SPEC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/tlock.spec SRPM: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/tlock-1.2-7.fc8.src.rpm I did few minor changes to tlock. No new feature addition, but removed some glitches from check_option() & readpass() functions and readpass manual. Rest all is exactly same as before. Thank you! Hello Ralf, What's up man, am waiting to hear something from you. Please see these latest files at SPEC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/tlock.spec SRPM: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/tlock-1.2-1.fc8.src.rpm Thanks! For 1.2-1: * rpmlint issue - Please check your rpms by rpmlint (in rpmlint package) ------------------------------------------------------------ tlock.i386: E: info-dir-file /usr/share/info/dir tlock.i386: W: summary-not-capitalized tlock is a terminal lock tlock.i386: W: one-line-command-in-%postun /sbin/ldconfig tlock.src: W: summary-not-capitalized tlock is a terminal lock tlock.src: W: strange-permission tlock.spec 0600 tlock.src: W: strange-permission tlock-1.2.tar.gz 0600 ------------------------------------------------------------ Summary * %_infodir/dir must be removed. * Summary must begin with capital letter. Also, the description "tlock is" is redundant. * When calling /sbin/ldconfig "only" on scriptlet, write it in one line to avoid unneeded shell call by ------------------------------------------------------------ %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig ------------------------------------------------------------ * Change the permission of all files in srpm to 0644. * Parallel make - Support parallel make if possible, otherwise write on the spec file that parallel make doesn't work for this package. * %clean - "make distclean" is not needed. rpmbuild finally removes all files under %_tmppath/%name-%version and the directory itself. ! Duplicate files - Not a blocker, however the files "README COPYING" for -devel package are redundant because -devel subpackage always requires tlock package. * info files issue - After removng %_infodir/dir ------------------------------------------------------------- [root@localhost i386]# LANG=C rpm -ivh tlock-1.2-1.fc9_p.1.i386.rpm tlock-devel-1.2-1.fc9_p.1.i386.rpm Preparing... ########################################### [100%] 1:tlock ########################################### [ 50%] install-info: warning: no info dir entry in `/usr/share/info/tlock.info' 2:tlock-devel ########################################### [100%] ------------------------------------------------------------- Please verify if this warning can be ignored. Hey Mamoru, thanks for the reply. Please see these new files below, I've made the changes. SPEC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/tlock.spec SRPM: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/tlock-1.2-2.fc8.src.rpm Thank you so much! * Please remove "make distclean". (In reply to comment #17) > - rpmbuild finally removes all files > under %_tmppath/%name-%version and the directory itself. Should be read as "under %_builddir/%name-%version and the directory itself, sorry.. * Source file differs from upstream: [tasaka1@localhost tlock]$ md5sum *gz */*gz 1570146fd518f07878c7b4d97235c2eb tlock-1.2.tar.gz 95a2851c47d7d41dbfa1999e974b49f0 tlock-1.2-2.fc8/tlock-1.2.tar.gz This cannot be allowed. Hey Mamoru, (In reply to comment #19) > * Please remove "make distclean". Oops..missed that, sorry. > * Source file differs from upstream: > 1570146fd518f07878c7b4d97235c2eb tlock-1.2.tar.gz > 95a2851c47d7d41dbfa1999e974b49f0 tlock-1.2-2.fc8/tlock-1.2.tar.gz Ah sorry again..did some changes to the techinfo source file, to add a menu entry in %{_infodir}/dir, and so as to get rid of that install-info warning. please see the latest files at SPEC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/tlock.spec SORC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/tlock-1.2.tar.gz SRPM: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/tlock-1.2-3.fc8.src.rpm Thank you! (In reply to comment #20) > Hey Mamoru, > > > * Source file differs from upstream: > > 1570146fd518f07878c7b4d97235c2eb tlock-1.2.tar.gz > > 95a2851c47d7d41dbfa1999e974b49f0 tlock-1.2-2.fc8/tlock-1.2.tar.gz > > Ah sorry again..did some changes to the techinfo source file, to add a menu > entry in %{_infodir}/dir, and so as to get rid of that install-info warning. Well, as you are the upstream, please don't change the released tarball _itself_ without changing version, otherwise it is very confusing (especially for people who are not aware of this review request). If you want to change the formally-released tarball itself, please change the version and release the new one. Hello Mamoru, that was quick!
> If you want to change the formally-released tarball itself, please
> change the version and release the new one.
Ah okay, I'll be careful hereafter. You don't want me to call it tlock-1.3, do
you?
Thanks!
(In reply to comment #22) > Ah okay, I'll be careful hereafter. You don't want me to call it tlock-1.3, do > you? > It is up to you, however honestly saying I still want you to change the version and release the new one (1.2.1, for example). Actually the diff is small, however it surely removes info install warning, which should be useful also for non-Fedora people. Anyway: ------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: Before being sponsored: This package will be accepted with another few (or no) work. But before I accept this package, someone (I am a candidate) must sponsor you. Once you are sponsored, you have the right to review other submitters' review requests and approve the packages formally. For this reason, the person who want to be sponsored (like you) are required to "show that you have an understanding of the process and of the packaging guidelines" as is described on : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored Usually there are two ways to show this. A. submit other review requests with enough quality. B. Do a "pre-review" of other person's review request (at the time you are not sponsored, you cannot do a formal review) When you have submitted a new review request or have pre-reviewed other person's review request, please write the bug number on this bug report so that I can check your comments or review request. Fedora package collection review requests which are waiting for someone to review can be checked on: http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html (NOTE: please don't choose "Merge Review") Review guidelines are described mainly on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets ------------------------------------------------------------ Hello Mamoru, thanks for the information. Please have a look at these new files at SPEC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/tlock.spec SORC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/tlock-1.3.tar.gz SRPM: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/tlock-1.3-1.fc8.src.rpm Also, I'm already working on the new review request for Move(http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/) and soon should be able to submit it. Thank you! If you have submitted another review request (or have done a pre-review of other person's review request). please let me know it. Hello Mamoru, I'm very sorry man, was a bit too busy last whole week. Yes, I'm almost done with the move package, and shall create a review request in couple of days and let you know immediately. Once again I'm really very sorry! Thanks!! Hello Mamoru, I've created a new package review request for move at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450850 Please have a look at let me know if any changes are required. Thank you! Okay for this package. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This package (tlock) is APPROVED by me --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please follow the procedure written on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join from "Get a Fedora Account". At a point a mail should be sent to sponsor members which notifies that you need a sponsor. At the stage, please also write on this bug for confirmation that you requested for sponsorship and your FAS (Fedora Account System) name. Then I will sponsor you. If you want to import this package into Fedora 8/9, you also have to look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UpdatesSystem/Bodhi-info-DRAFT (after once you rebuilt this package on koji Fedora rebuilding system). If you have questions, please ask me. Hey Mamoru, Thank you so much! I'm really very happy. :) I'll go through the links and follow them. Thanks! :) Hello Mamoru, I've already created the FAS account, my username is: pjp. I've also applied for the membership to cvsextras group, but that is not yet approved. Could you please approve it? Thank you! Now I am sponsoring you. Please follow "Join" page again. (In reply to comment #31) > Now I am sponsoring you. Please follow "Join" page again. Hey, thank you so much. I'll do that. :) Thank you! New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: tlock Short Description: terminal lock Owners: pjp Branches: F-8 F-9 EL-4 EL-5 InitialCC: pjp Cvsextras Commits: yes cvs done. ping? Hey Mamoru, how are you? I did package tlock for devel(F-10), F-8, F-9, EL-4 and EL-5 successfully. :) Now will it be included in the next Fedora/EL release automatically, or do I still need to do something? I'm again working on move now, converting it to `ptrash'. Hey, I'm really thankful to you for all the support you gave me. Thank you! :) (In reply to comment #36) For EPEL - Actually I don't know. Currently I don't maintain any packages on EPEL. However according to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#Package_maintenance_and_update_policy it seems that packages are added automatically after one month of testing period? For F-9/8 It is *not* pushed automatically. You have to visit https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ and request to push your packages into repositories. tlock-1.3-1.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9 tlock-1.3-1.fc8 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8 tlock-1.3-1.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. tlock-1.3-1.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: tlock New Branches: epel7 Owners: pjp Git done (by process-git-requests). Thank you Jon! :) |