Bug 530288
Summary: | Review Request: stonevpn - easy OpenVPN certificate and configuration management | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Leon Keijser <leon> | ||||
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Mamoru TASAKA <mtasaka> | ||||
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> | ||||
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||
Priority: | low | ||||||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, herrold, lemenkov, mtasaka, notting | ||||
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | mtasaka:
fedora-review+
j: fedora-cvs+ |
||||
Target Release: | --- | ||||||
Hardware: | All | ||||||
OS: | Linux | ||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
Last Closed: | 2009-11-17 16:01:25 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: | |||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Leon Keijser
2009-10-22 07:58:47 UTC
Some notes: * EVR (Epoch-Version-Release) - For released tarball, the version tag should begin with 1%{?dist} (not 0), should be incremented every time you change your spec file, and be reset to 1%{?dist} when version is upgraded: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Package_Release * License tag - The license tag for this package should be "GPLv2+". Ref: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ#How_do_I_figure_out_what_version_of_the_GPL.2FLGPL_my_package_is_under.3F * SourceURL - For sourceforge hosted tarball, follow: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Sourceforge.net * Seemingly unneeded files ----------------------------------------------------------- /usr/share/StoneVPN/COPYING /usr/share/StoneVPN/Changelog /usr/share/StoneVPN/README /usr/share/StoneVPN/TODO ----------------------------------------------------------- - These files are also installed under /usr/share/doc/stonevpn-0.4.3 ----------------------------------------------------------- /usr/share/StoneVPN/patches/pyOpenSSL-0.9-crl_and_revoked.patch /usr/share/StoneVPN/rpm/stonevpn.spec ----------------------------------------------------------- - Are these files really needed? * Usability ----------------------------------------------------------- [tasaka1@localhost ~]$ stonevpn File /etc/stonevpn.conf does not exist! ----------------------------------------------------------- - Please install /etc/stonevpn. Note that we usually expect that the installed application works as it is. Created attachment 367803 [details] updated SPEC file Updated SPEC file according to comment #2 Hi Mamoru, thanks for your notes. My comments are below, prefixed with '+': * EVR (Epoch-Version-Release) + fixed * License tag + fixed * SourceURL + fixed. Entire SourceURL pointed to the wrong address. * Seemingly unneeded files + fixed: i've removed them. Although now rpmlint complains about missing documentation. Shouldn't i at least include the README file? * Usability + fixed by adding an {__install} method to %install and including it in %files as %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/%{name}.conf Updated SPEC file is attached to this bug report (since github fails to recognize it as a new file and stupidly shows the older version). Updated SRPM: http://cloud.github.com/downloads/lkeijser/stonevpn/stonevpn-0.4.3-1.fc11.src.rpm Thanks! Well, what I meant is that for me the following 6 files --------------------------------------------------------- /usr/share/StoneVPN/COPYING /usr/share/StoneVPN/Changelog /usr/share/StoneVPN/README /usr/share/StoneVPN/TODO /usr/share/StoneVPN/patches/pyOpenSSL-0.9-crl_and_revoked.patch /usr/share/StoneVPN/rpm/stonevpn.spec --------------------------------------------------------- seems unneeded (and should be removed), because - The former 4 files are also installed (on -0 spec file) under /usr/share/doc/stonevpn-0.4.3 via %doc (i.e. what I am saying is that while /usr/share/doc/stonevpn-0.4.3/COPYING should be kept, /usr/share/StoneVPN/COPYING or so seems unneeded) - Currently I don't understand why a patch or a rpm spec file have to be installed under /usr/share/StoneVPN . All these 6 files are still installed with -1 srpm. You're right and the setup.py installed these in /usr/share/StoneVPN. Since i am the author of stonevpn i modified setup.py so the documentation files, patches and spec file are not installed but kept in the tarball only. I have updated the spec file (github _does_ work, although it takes some time for the changes to take effect) and SRPM. SPEC: http://cloud.github.com/downloads/lkeijser/stonevpn/stonevpn.spec SRPM: http://cloud.github.com/downloads/lkeijser/stonevpn/stonevpn-0.4.3-2.fc11.src.rpm Since the %doc section now includes the files again, rpmlint showed no warning/errors anymore. Files that are now installed are: /etc/stonevpn.conf /usr/bin/stonevpn /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/StoneVPN /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/StoneVPN/__init__.py /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/StoneVPN/__init__.pyc /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/StoneVPN/__init__.pyo /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/StoneVPN/app.py /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/StoneVPN/app.pyc /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/StoneVPN/app.pyo /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/stonevpn-0.4.3-py2.6.egg-info /usr/share/doc/stonevpn-0.4.3 /usr/share/doc/stonevpn-0.4.3/COPYING /usr/share/doc/stonevpn-0.4.3/Changelog /usr/share/doc/stonevpn-0.4.3/README /usr/share/doc/stonevpn-0.4.3/TODO Some questions: ------------------------------------------------------------------- 29147 2009-10-22 16:50 stonevpn-0.4.3-0.fc11.src/stonevpn-0.4.3.tar.gz 29320 2009-11-07 01:41 stonevpn-0.4.3-2.fc11.src/stonevpn-0.4.3.tar.gz ------------------------------------------------------------------- - Source tarball changed. Would you explain what happened? We expect that if a static URL is used as Source0, its source archive does not change (as long as %version or so does not change). If the tarball is not the one formally released as "0.4.3" but one created from git, please follow: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Post-Release_packages https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Using_Revision_Control i.e. - Include the revision string of git tree or the date when the tarball was created to the tarball name and the release number of the srpm. - Would you have any plan to submit your patch "pyOpenSSL-0.9-crl_and_revoked.patch" to pyOpenSSL upstream? * At least I guess Fedora's pyOpenSSL won't accept this patch unless pyOpenSSL upstream accepts it and if you want to support CRL with this software on Fedora submitting your patch to pyOpenSSL upstream is really needed: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/WhyUpstream - Source tarball changed. Would you explain what happened? + Yes, i accidentally uploaded a modified version under the same name. Stupid mistake. Since there were several other outstanding changes, i made a new version (0.4.4) and created an updated SPEC/SRPM/tarball. - Would you have any plan to submit your patch + It's not my patch, but from Rick Dean. It's already proposed for merge into main. See https://bugs.launchpad.net/pyopenssl/+bug/404436 Updated SPEC: http://cloud.github.com/downloads/lkeijser/stonevpn/stonevpn.spec Updated SRPM: http://cloud.github.com/downloads/lkeijser/stonevpn/stonevpn-0.4.4-1.fc11.src.rpm Well, I think that latest srpm is okay, so: ------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: Before being sponsored: This package will be accepted with another few 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 ------------------------------------------------------------ It seems that you are the upstream of this software, however still I want to see at least one pre-review (by you) or another review request. Okay, thanks. I will do so as soon as time allows. Created a pre-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=494292 Btw, i thought it would be nice if i added some manpages to it. Do you think this would be good to have in Fedora or does the --help function + README suffice? I've added stonevpn (1) and stonevpn.conf (5). Well, I will approve this package. ------------------------------------------------------------- This package (stonevpn) is APPROVED by mtasaka ------------------------------------------------------------- Please follow the procedure written on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join from "Install the Client Tools (Koji)". Now I am sponsoring you. If you want to import this package into Fedora 11/12, 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. Removing NEEDSPONSOR. (In reply to comment #11) > Btw, i thought it would be nice if i added some manpages to it. Do you think > this would be good to have in Fedora or does the --help function + README > suffice? I've added stonevpn (1) and stonevpn.conf (5). Adding man files is not mandatory, however adding useful documents are always recommended. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: stonevpn Short Description: Easy OpenVPN certificate and configuration management Owners: leon Branches: F-11 F-12 EL-5 InitialCC: CVS done. One question though: i'm building the package now through koji for F-11, F-12 and rawhide. However, when i want to build for EL-5 (epel), it fails on a missing egg-info file that probably won't be installed in epel but is listed in the %files section of the spec file. Now i could make an if-then statement that checks for the distro and only includes the egg-info file for F-* but what is the proper way? (In reply to comment #15) You can use %if macro, or you can modify EL-5 spec file only if you don't want to use %if macro. You can do either way. Now closing. Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: stonevpn New Branches: F-13 Owners: leon An F-13 branch already exists for this package. I didn't know a new branch would be added automatically. Re-read the CVS FAQ and 'cvs update -d' did the trick. |