Bug 541744

Created attachment 375016 [details]
proposed spec for requied liboping

I build liboping this spec file.
Whith liboping collectd was build with ping plugin.
Release set to 0.1 to rflect local build.

I'm not sure if openpkg license is allowed in Fedora, it is not listed at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses
I'll ask on fedora-legal-list.

liboping itself is GPL, so this query is only done due to the specfile.
Re-writing a new one is probably better than going through special
licensing steps here...

regards,

Florian La Roche

yes, rewriting is an option but openpkg license is actually MIT so it's allowed
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2009-December/msg00001.html

Anton, are you willing to open liboping review request using this spec?

I never do this (review request before).
Investigating now.

Opened a review ticket bug #571790
Anton, if you're willing to take over the review/package, feel free.

This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 13 development cycle.
Changing version to '13'.

More information and reason for this action is here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping

Alan, liboping was built into F-14 and F-13 (submitted into updates-testing). 

Please enable the ping plugin in Rawhide (and I'd be very thankful if you could enable it in F-13 as well, please give the update [1] a positive karma and it will get pushed into stable if it works for you)

[1] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/liboping-1.3.4-1.fc13

Anton, if you wish to take over the package maintenance (liboping), please let me know.

F-13 build follows

(In reply to comment #9)
> F-13 build follows    

This is blocked until liboping is pushed to stable, so F13 buildroots can have it:
 No Package Found for liboping-devel

spec change is pushed to F-13 CVS branche, just not tagged yet.

Please add karma: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/liboping-1.3.4-1.fc13

(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> > F-13 build follows    
> 
> This is blocked until liboping is pushed to stable, so F13 buildroots can have
> it:
>  No Package Found for liboping-devel

Alan, it might be too late in this particular case, in general the best way to handle this is via a "buildroot override" request via rel-eng:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Buildroot_override_SOP

You request a temporary push of the package into the buildroot (before it pushed to the actual repo), build against the override package (in this case liboping), then add both packages (in this case, liboping and collectd) to the update.    That way you ensure that the end user doesn't see any temporary dep breakage at the repo-level.  Otherwise you have the problem that you have to wait an extra cycle to get all the deps fixed, i.e. push of liboping, temporary breakage of collectd, then a new build/push of collectd which finally fixes things.

Of course, this only applies if there is actually an ABI/soname breakage, if there is none in this particular case, then this won't necessarily apply.

(In reply to comment #11)
> handle this is via a "buildroot override" request via rel-eng:

yes, but liboping is a new package, so it didn't seem justified to request the override procedure.
In any case, we just need one more karma+ in Bodhi: Anton or anyone from CC, please test :)