Bug 491331 (spacewalk-config)
Summary: | Review Request: spacewalk-config - Spacewalk Configuration | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Miroslav Suchý <msuchy> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Ruediger Landmann <rlandman> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | low | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | aquini, christoph.wickert, fedora-package-review, notting, rlandman, xavier |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | rlandman:
fedora-review+
j: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | spacewalk-config-1.2.7-1.fc14 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2010-11-18 13:19:03 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: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 452450, 612581, 623772 |
Description
Miroslav Suchý
2009-03-20 13:42:06 UTC
PING It's been more than a year with no progress; This review should be closed soon if there is no response, shouldn't it? It is not my fault that no one pick it up. Isn't it? This is definitely not your fault the package has not been picked up for review, indeed. And it can be quite depressing to wait for someone to take up the job ;-) However, you might want to update the spec and SRPM to the latest upstream version. I see there was several releases since 0.5.7, the latest being 1.2.1. This might help in the quest for a good willing reviewer. From a quick glance at the review queue, it seems at least some of the others spacewalk related reviews are also in need for updated specs and SRPMs (spacewalk-backend,rhnmd), although the gap is closer for them. Updated SRPM: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/spacewalk-config/spacewalk-config-1.2.3-1.el6.src.rpm SPEC: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/spacewalk-config/spacewalk-config.spec Hi Miroslav -- All looks good, except the non-conffile-in-etc warnings I also note that there's a vesion 1.2.4 upstream, so if you rebuild this package to take care of the config file warnings, perhaps you can use the latest version? Cheers Rudi - = N/A / = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [!] Rpmlint output is clean: $ rpmlint SPECS/spacewalk-config.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint SRPMS/spacewalk-config-1.2.3-1.fc13.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/spacewalk-config-1.2.3-1.fc13.noarch.rpm spacewalk-config.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /etc/rhn 0750L spacewalk-config.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /etc/pki/tls/private/spacewalk.key ../../../httpd/conf/ssl.key/server.key spacewalk-config.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /etc/pki/tls/certs/spacewalk.crt ../../../httpd/conf/ssl.crt/server.crt spacewalk-config.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/sysconfig/rhn-satellite-prep/etc/rhn/cluster.ini spacewalk-config.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/sysconfig/rhn-satellite-prep/etc/rhn/rhn.conf spacewalk-config.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/rhn/rhn.conf 0640L spacewalk-config.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%pre perl 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings. [/] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [/] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [/] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Language specific items [/] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [/] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: GPLv2 [/] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. %doc LICENSE [/] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [/] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. $ md5sum SOURCES/spacewalk-config-1.2.3.tar.gz 3e095682d9863c5eb1f02ccb1c7313b5 SOURCES/spacewalk-config-1.2.3.tar.gz $ md5sum ~/Download/spacewalk-config-1.2.3.tar.gz 3e095682d9863c5eb1f02ccb1c7313b5 /home/rlandmann/Download/spacewalk-config-1.2.3.tar.gz [/] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2570954 [/] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch [/] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly (with the %find_lang macro) [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [/] Package does not bundle copies of system libraries [/] Package is not relocatable. [/] Package must own all directories that it creates. [/] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [/] Permissions on files are set properly [/] %files section includes a %defattr(...) line [/] Package consistently uses macros. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [/] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] -devel packages require base package with full versioning. [/] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [/] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [/] Filenames are valid UTF-8 === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [/] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [/] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested through koji [/] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Tested on: f13 [?] Package functions as described. [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] Subpackages other than -devel require the base package as a fully versioned dependency [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct (normally in -devel) [-] File based requires are sane. [-] Package contains man pages for binaries and scripts. > All looks good, except the non-conffile-in-etc warnings Addressed. I moved it to /var/lib/rhn, where those templates belong. > perhaps you can use the latest version I can. I'm member of upstream team. We are releasing new versions quite often... Updated SRPM: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/spacewalk-config/spacewalk-config-1.2.5-1.el6.src.rpm SPEC: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/spacewalk-config/spacewalk-config.spec Thanks Miroslav -- rpmlint is quiet now except for the (understandable) warnings about permissions, symlinks, and perl. ACCEPT Please go ahead and make your SCM request. (In reply to comment #5) > [/] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Language specific > items - Incorrect BuildRoot tag. For Fedora it can be omitted and for EPEL5 it should be one of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#BuildRoot_tag - Should use %global instead of %define - %description should end with a dot (and could be a little more elaborate). - startup.pl and satidmap.pl should be tagged %config or not be in %{_sysconfdir}. The latter is something that be fixed upstream but not in packaging. > [/] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > License type: GPLv2 - Should be GPLv2+. If no version of the license is specified, then it usually means "or any later versions", see section 9 of the GPLv2. > [/] Package must own all directories that it creates. But it doesn't: %{_sysconfdir}/pki/tls/ %{_sysconfdir}/pki/tls/certs/ %{_sysconfdir}/pki/tls/private/ %{_var}/lib/cobbler/ %{_var}/lib/cobbler/kickstarts/ %{_var}/lib/cobbler/snippets/ are not owned by this package or one of it's requirements. And %{_var}/lib/ should be %{_sharedstatedir}. > [/] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. It does: warning: File listed twice: /var/lib/rhn/rhn-satellite-prep warning: File listed twice: /var/lib/rhn/rhn-satellite-prep/etc warning: File listed twice: /var/lib/rhn/rhn-satellite-prep/etc/rhn warning: File listed twice: /var/lib/rhn/rhn-satellite-prep/etc/rhn/cluster.ini warning: File listed twice: /var/lib/rhn/rhn-satellite-prep/etc/rhn/rhn.conf %{prepdir} is a subdirectory %{_sharedstatedir}/rhn > [/] Permissions on files are set properly > [/] %files section includes a %defattr(...) line > [/] Package consistently uses macros. > [/] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Is %{_sharedstatedir}/rhn really not owned by something else? (In reply to comment #8) Thanks Christopher for your corrections; I have of course set the review flag back to ? so that Miroslav can take another look at these. Kind regards Rudi >- Incorrect BuildRoot tag. For Fedora it can be omitted and for EPEL5 it should >be one of >http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#BuildRoot_tag >- Should use %global instead of %define >- %description should end with a dot (and could be a little more elaborate). all addressed > - startup.pl and satidmap.pl should be tagged %config or not be in >%{_sysconfdir}. The latter is something that be fixed upstream but not in >packaging. I moved satidmap.pl to /usr/share/rhn. No problem here. But I have problem with startup.pl. It is perl executable. Not configuration file. This is file which mod_perl call during its start. And it always put in apache configuration. I tried to search for some mod_perl aplication in Fedora, but find none. I hesitate to mark this one file as config and also move it to other place. > - Should be GPLv2+. No. It was released as GPLv2. We intentionaly did not released it with "or later" appendix. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses list GPLv2 as good license. > [/] Package must own all directories that it creates. Addressed. > [/] Package does not contain duplicates in %files Addressed. > Is %{_sharedstatedir}/rhn really not owned by something else? No. On fully installed Spacewalk: # rpm -qf /var/lib/rhn file /var/lib/rhn is not owned by any package Updated SRPM: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/spacewalk-config/spacewalk-config-1.2.6-1.el6.src.rpm SPEC: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/spacewalk-config/spacewalk-config.spec (In reply to comment #10) > > - startup.pl and satidmap.pl should be tagged %config or not be in > >%{_sysconfdir}. The latter is something that be fixed upstream but not in > >packaging. > I moved satidmap.pl to /usr/share/rhn. No problem here. > But I have problem with startup.pl. It is perl executable. Not configuration > file. This is file which mod_perl call during its start. And it always put in > apache configuration. I tried to search for some mod_perl aplication in Fedora, > but find none. > I hesitate to mark this one file as config and also move it to other place. Could you place it in /usr/share/rhn too, and load it with a config file in /etc/httpd/conf.d? The /etc/httpd/conf.d/README file also notes: "Files are processed in alphabetical order, so if using configuration directives which depend on, say, mod_perl being loaded, ensure that these are placed in a filename later in the sort order than "perl.conf"." I dig up more info about usual location of startup.pl and find that it is indeed sometimes located in /usr/share. So I moved it. Updated SRPM: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/spacewalk-config/spacewalk-config-1.2.7-1.el6.src.rpm SPEC: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/spacewalk-config/spacewalk-config.spec (In reply to comment #12) > I dig up more info about usual location of startup.pl and find that it is > indeed sometimes located in /usr/share. So I moved it. Thanks Miroslav; I think this clears up the remaining issues. Thanks again also to Christoph for the catch earlier. ACCEPT -- please go ahead and make your SCM request. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: spacewalk-config Short Description: Spacewalk Configuration Owners: msuchy Branches: F-13, F-14, EL-5, EL-6 InitialCC: Git done (by process-git-requests). spacewalk-config-1.2.7-1.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/spacewalk-config-1.2.7-1.fc14 spacewalk-config-1.2.7-1.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/spacewalk-config-1.2.7-1.fc13 spacewalk-config-1.2.7-1.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. spacewalk-config-1.2.7-1.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |