Bug 537727

Summary:	Review Request: Slack - A lazy systems administration configuration management toolkit.
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Matt T. Proud <matt.proud>
Component:	Package Review	Assignee:	Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>
Status:	CLOSED NOTABUG	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	low
Version:	rawhide	CC:	fedora-package-review, ndowens04, notting, opensource, susi.lehtola
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:	StalledSubmitter
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2011-08-11 17:30:08 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 Matt T. Proud 2009-11-16 03:33:42 UTC

Spec URL: http://www.nerp.net/~khanreaper/slack.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.nerp.net/~khanreaper/slack-0.15.2.src.rpm
Description:

Configuration management program for lazy systems administrators.

Slack allows centralized configuration management with a bare minimum of
effort.  Usually, just putting a file in the right place will cause the
right thing to be done.  It uses rsync to copy files around, so it can use any
sort of source that rsync supports---e.g., SSH over remote host, NFS, etc.

It is most useful for initial configuration turn-ups or places where the
desired configuration is static and do not depend on the destination's state.

TAGS: FIRST-PACKAGE FE-NEEDSPONSOR

Comment 1 Matt T. Proud 2009-11-16 03:36:42 UTC

The submitted spec file is based off Slack's distribution one, but it has been updated and sanitized to conform to Fedora 11 and beyond's expectations.  This is my first package, so please be patient.

I share employment with the principal author of this software.  It has been incorporated into Debian already by another friend and co-worker.

Comment 2 Susi Lehtola 2009-11-16 13:49:30 UTC

Just a few notes:

- the name of the patch should be something of the lines of
 slack-0.15.2-fileplacement.patch
The most important thing is that it begins with slack- so that if one builds the RPM with rpmbuild the source files of different packages are easily separated.

- You shouldn't need to define %defattr for the normal files, just use
 %defattr(-,root,root,-)
For the privileged items you can use the special permissions, although I'd change
 %defattr(0755,root,root,0700)
to
 %defattr(0700,root,root,0700)
to keep things logical..

- I'm wondering whether the use of
 slack_libdir="%{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/%{name}/lib"
is reasonable. Wouldn't
 slack_libdir="%{buildroot}/%{_libdir}/%{name}"
be more logical? Or, in the case of architecture independent files just
 slack_libdir="%{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/%{name}"
Also, please note that currently you don't own the directory
 %{_datadir}/%{name}
that is created by the rpm.

- I wouldn't use compression suffixes in the man files, since they can change in the future, so change e.g.
 %{_mandir}/man1/slack-diff.1.gz
to
 %{_mandir}/man1/slack-diff.1.*

Comment 3 Matt T. Proud 2009-11-17 03:19:12 UTC

Hi Jussi,

Thank you for the prompt feedback.  I have gone ahead and incorporated your suggestions:

- Patch naming,
- Privileges,
- Using %{_datadir}/%{name} due to the item being architecture-independent,
- Ownership of the %{_datadir}/%{name}, and
- The format-agnosticness of the manual pages.

I did make an error in the URL for the SRPM supra.  The correct address is http://www.nerp.net/~khanreaper/slack-0.15.2-2.fc11.src.rpm.

Let me know if there's anything else I can do!

- M.

Comment 4 Matt T. Proud 2009-11-22 20:48:28 UTC

Hi Jussi,

Just a polite ping.  Is everything progressing well with the review?  If not, do you think you could forward this off to someone else?

- M.

Comment 5 Susi Lehtola 2009-11-22 21:05:10 UTC

I haven't taken the review, yet. When someone takes it, the bug status is changed to ASSIGNED, the Assigned To: field is modified accordingly and the fedora_review flag is set to '?'...

Comment 6 Till Maas 2010-06-30 14:20:18 UTC

(In reply to comment #4)

> Just a polite ping.  Is everything progressing well with the review?  If not,
> do you think you could forward this off to someone else?

Hi Matt, to speed things up you can help with showing that you are familiar with the Fedora Packaging Guidelines. Usually this is done by commenting on other review requests and performing unofficial reviews and then link to these reviews here. Then if a sponsor comes along, he will notice your effort and more likely sponsor you. But it might still take some time.

Comment 7 Jason Tibbitts 2010-11-13 23:23:11 UTC

I wonder if anything's happening with this ticket.  Till gave good advice many months ago, but nothing seemed to happen after that.

Comment 8 Nathan Owe 2011-08-07 04:36:49 UTC

I would probably close this bug. Upstream activity is low, the latest version was released in 2008.