Bug 501130

Upstream clarified licensing to GPLv2-only with the 1.16 release now:

Spec URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/drbdlinks.spec
SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/drbdlinks-1.16-1.src.rpm

Good:
+ Basename of the SPEC file matches with package name.
+ Name of the package fullfill naming guildines.
+ Package has proper RPM-group
+ URL tag show on proper project homepage
+ Package contains most recent release of the software
+ Could download upstream tar ball via spectool -g
+ Package tar ball matches with upstream
(md5sum: c11b38dfa60d8d07b55746a957b48b19 )
* Package contains valid License tag
+ License tag state GPLv2 as an valid OSS license
+ Header of the source file has GPLv2 license note
+ Package has verbatin copy of the license text
+ Package has proper defintion of the Buildroot
+ Buildroot will be cleaned at the beginning of %clean and %install
+ %doc stanza is small, so we need no extra doc subpackage
+ Package contains proper Changelog
+ Local build works fine
+ Rpmlint is quiete on source rpm
+ Koji build works fine.

Bad:
- Initscripts should be install on %{_initrddir}
  (Unproper usage of rpm macros)
- don't put a file on %{_localstatedir}/run. 
  you should only create a directory on it
- Who should owned %{_sysconfdir}/ha.d ?
- Rpmlint complaints on binary rpm:
$ rpmlint drbdlinks-1.16-1.fc10.noarch.rpm
drbdlinks.noarch: W: missing-lsb-keyword Default-Stop in /etc/rc.d/init.d/drbdlinksclean
drbdlinks.noarch: E: subsys-not-used /etc/rc.d/init.d/drbdlinksclean
drbdlinks.noarch: W: incoherent-init-script-name drbdlinksclean
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.

(In reply to comment #2)
> - Initscripts should be install on %{_initrddir}
>   (Unproper usage of rpm macros)

I want to package drbdlinks for all active branches and this is only possible
without macro usage currently, look for %{_initrddir} vs. %{_initdir} or so.

> - don't put a file on %{_localstatedir}/run. 
>   you should only create a directory on it

Upstream initscript doesn't do that as well. And drbdlinks isn't a daemon. It
also can be triggered by heartbeat. Thus /var/run doesn't make sense.

> - Who should owned %{_sysconfdir}/ha.d ?

Heartbeat owns that directory. But heartbeat is optional, drbdlinks can be
used with and without.

> drbdlinks.noarch: W: missing-lsb-keyword Default-Stop in
> /etc/rc.d/init.d/drbdlinksclean

If no Default-Start, no Default-Stop. The line has not to exist, if it is
not filled, IIRC.

> drbdlinks.noarch: E: subsys-not-used /etc/rc.d/init.d/drbdlinksclean
> drbdlinks.noarch: W: incoherent-init-script-name drbdlinksclean

As explained above.

(In reply to comment #3)

> I want to package drbdlinks for all active branches and this is only possible
> without macro usage currently, look for %{_initrddir} vs. %{_initdir} or so.

I thought, all rpm macros defined by the packaging guildlines should be available on EPEL too.
 
> > - Who should owned %{_sysconfdir}/ha.d ?
> 
> Heartbeat owns that directory. But heartbeat is optional, drbdlinks can be
> used with and without.

Please ask maintainer to create a filesystem subpackage of heartbeat. This subpackage should contains all directories which are common for heartbeat and yours. Your package should depends on this package.

(In reply to comment #4)
> Please ask maintainer to create a filesystem subpackage of heartbeat. This
> subpackage should contains all directories which are common for heartbeat and
> yours. Your package should depends on this package.  

Hum? IMHO that behaves same as for /etc/logrotate.d/* or /etc/cron.d/* files.
It's a dependency, that can be satisfied, but must not necessarily.

(In reply to comment #5)

> Hum? IMHO that behaves same as for /etc/logrotate.d/* or /etc/cron.d/* files.
> It's a dependency, that can be satisfied, but must not necessarily.  

Don't tell me anything about old packages which we have perhaps since RH 7 or so. You should know, that this old packages didn't follow the current packaging guidelines. That is the reason why we have the so-called merge review.

For a new package I want, the each file/directory should owned by a package.

(In reply to comment #2)

> - don't put a file on %{_localstatedir}/run. 
>   you should only create a directory on it

Please at a the line

%{_localstatedir}/run/%{name}/

on the files stanza, so that directory and all directory belongs will be 
owned by this package.

Ah, I mis-got you there - sorry. It should be %{_localstatedir}/run/%{name}/
of course, my packaging mistake. Anything else except that and /etc/ha.d/-mess?

Regarding %{_initrddir} vs. %{_initdir}: %{_initrddir} lives on EL-4/5, while
%{_initdir} lives on F-10/F-11/Rawhide. Thus two different macros, but EPEL is
getting often ignored by packagers, so it doesn't matter for many. And if you
don't want to mess with macro stuff inside spec file or make individual changes
per branch, /etc/rc.d/init/ is now the only sane and really readable way inside
of a spec file.

Regarding of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/RPMMacros only
%{_initrdddir} is valid, which shows to %{_sysconfdir}/rc.d/init.d/

Well, /usr/lib/rpm/platform/i586-linux/macros from rpm-4.6+ shows following:

%_initddir              %{_sysconfdir}/rc.d/init.d
# Deprecated misspelling
%_initrddir             %{_initddir}

That may be. If you want to change the packaging guildlines you may feell free to open a discussion of the fedora-packaging list.

Spec URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/drbdlinks.spec
SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/drbdlinks-1.17-1.src.rpm

After a discusion on fedora-Packaging, We have dicide no to use _initrddir or initddir in the funtere.

In addition I have open BZ #501518 for creating a filesystem subpackage for heartbeate.

So, after we have clarified this two topics, I'm able to APPROVE your package.

Does that now mean, that I can/should/must revert my %{_initrddir} usage?


New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: drbdlinks
Short Description: A program for managing links into a DRBD shared partition
Owners: robert
Branches: EL-4 EL-5 F-10 F-11
InitialCC:

You should convert to %{_sysconfdir}/rc.d/init.d in the futere.

cvs done.

Package: drbdlinks-1.18-1.fc12 Tag: dist-f12 Status: complete
Package: drbdlinks-1.18-1.fc11 Tag: dist-f11-updates-candidate Status: complete 
Package: drbdlinks-1.18-1.fc10 Tag: dist-f10-updates-candidate Status: complete

2372 (drbdlinks): Build on target fedora-5-epel succeeded.
2373 (drbdlinks): Build on target fedora-4-epel succeeded.

drbdlinks-1.18-1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drbdlinks-1.18-1.fc11

drbdlinks-1.17-1.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drbdlinks-1.17-1.fc10

drbdlinks-1.18-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

drbdlinks-1.18-1.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.