Bug 606003

Summary: Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Konstantin Zemlyak <zart>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: low    
Version: rawhideCC: fedora-package-review, felix, mrunge, notting, trever, zart
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: 2012-03-24 18:19:39 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Description Flags
intial shot at a spec file none

Description Konstantin Zemlyak 2010-06-19 21:51:11 UTC
Spec URL: http://aura.zartsoft.ru/~zart/fedora/pypolicyd-spf.spec
SRPM URL: http://aura.zartsoft.ru/~zart/fedora/pypolicyd-spf-0.8.0-1.fc13.src.rpm
pypolicyd-spf is a Postfix policy engine for Sender Policy Framework (SPF)
checking. It is implemented in pure Python and uses the python-spf (pyspf)
This SPF policy server implementation provides flexible options for different
receiver policies and sender whitelisting to enable it to support a very wide
range of requirements.

This is my first package and I need a sponsor.

Comment 1 Jason Tibbitts 2010-11-23 20:00:06 UTC
Note that you can remove the %{?fedora} > 12 conditional; F13 is the oldest thing you can build for.  There were also updated Python guidelines which you should read over.  The python3 stuff probably has no bearing on this package, but you will at least need BuildRequires: python2-devel instead of python-devel.

Comment 2 Konstantin Zemlyak 2010-12-02 05:58:10 UTC
Thanks for reviewing.

I've updated package to version 0.8.1 released few days ago. Spec has been updated to use python2-devel and %{}-style for consistency. I'll keep %{?fedora} > 12 for now since I'm still running f12 myself.

http://aura.zartsoft.ru/~zart/fedora/ has both src and noarch rpms from koji's scratch builds:


Comment 3 Matthias Runge 2012-02-27 14:31:49 UTC
any progress here?

Comment 4 Trever Adams 2013-05-11 13:30:30 UTC
Anyone still interested in this and willing to help if I get a spec file started?

Comment 5 Konstantin Zemlyak 2013-05-11 13:34:41 UTC
Feel free to reuse my .spec files at http://feena.zartsoft.ru/~zart/fedora/

Comment 6 Trever Adams 2013-05-11 13:57:13 UTC
Created attachment 746539 [details]
intial shot at a spec file

Comment 7 Trever Adams 2013-05-11 13:59:01 UTC
Thank you. I appreciate this. Any reason you stopped working on this?

Comment 8 Konstantin Zemlyak 2013-05-11 14:40:58 UTC
I thought I've finished the spec, but probably didn't follow up release process properly so it stuck at "StalledSubmitter" stage. I didn't have time and interest to pursue it further since rpm worked for me just fine.

My mailserver has been using that rpm for few years now without issues.

Comment 9 Konstantin Zemlyak 2013-05-11 14:58:12 UTC
I had a look at your version of spec and have got few questions:

- why both python-devel and python2-devel? also judging by setup.py in 1.1.2 it's now 3.2+ compatible
- Since it's postfix-specific package, why you didn't put postfix in Requires? Installing this package without postfix doesn't make sense.
- python-setuptools is not strictly required since it's pure distutils package.
- Shouldn't %{_sysconfig} files be marked as %config(noreplace)? Also why mark them as executable with 0755?

Comment 10 Felix Kaechele 2013-05-11 15:08:35 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 921797 ***

Comment 11 Trever Adams 2013-05-11 16:40:48 UTC
Konstantin, some of that was copied from other spec files I copied from or from the python-spf package. Thank you for pointing some of these things out. I am going to fix several of my other packages now.