Bug 875450
Summary: | Review Request: sstp-client - SSL based VPN to Microsoft Infrastructure | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Andreas Muehlemann <amuehlem> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | 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: | unspecified | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | axel.thimm, i, mail, misc, notting, package-review |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2013-06-21 12:09:27 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
Andreas Muehlemann
2012-11-11 10:24:10 UTC
http://www.muehlemann.net/rpm/sstp-client.spec gives me a 403. (In reply to comment #1) > http://www.muehlemann.net/rpm/sstp-client.spec gives me a 403. Sorry, my bad, I only tested the SRPM. It's fixed. Just some quick comment: - There are static libs in your -devel package. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries - Please check your %changelog entry https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs - Please use %global instead of %define - The rpmlint output is not clean: [fab@laptop11 review-srpm]$ rpmlint sstp-client-1.0.8-1.fc17.src.rpm sstp-client.src: E: description-line-too-long C A client implementation of Secure Socket Tunneling Protocol (SSTP) for Linux / Mac OS-X that allows remote access via SSTP VPN to Microsoft Windows 2008 Server. sstp-client.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog sstp-client.src: W: strange-permission sstp-client.spec 0600L 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. Hi Fabian Thank you for your input. I've update my SPEC and SRPM accordingly. rpmlint does not show any errors and I disabled the static libraries. You'll find the updated files here Spec URL: http://www.muehlemann.net/rpm/sstp-client.spec SRPM URL: http://www.muehlemann.net/rpm/sstp-client-1.0.8-1.fc17.src.rpm regards Andreas - Do you plan to include your package in older EPEL releases? If not, please remove the obsolete stuff (e.g. %defattr, Group:, and %clean). - Please use macros instead of hardcoded path descriptions. Meaning replace /usr/sbin/ with %{_sbindir} and so on. - Please check if the *.la files are needed by the package. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries - The unversioned shared system library files must go to the -devel package. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Devel_Packages - man pages do not need to be marked as %doc. - Please give a brief summary of changes in the changelog about the changes you have made. This way it's much easier to follow the development of the spec file. If you are still looking for a sponsor, please follow https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group Hi Fabian Why should the unversioned shared system library go to the -devel package? From the packaging guidelines: When a shared library file is only provided in an unversioned format, the packager should ask upstream to consider providing a properly versioned library file. However, in such cases, if the shared library file is necessary for users to run programs linked against it, it must go into the base package. Does this section not cover exactly this package? Or shall I try to move the unversioned library to a versioned file and replace the unversioned library by a symlink? Best regards Andreas Hi all, I'm sponsoring Andreas, do I need to remove the FE-NEEDSPONSOR blocker dependency? I guess I should, but it's not mentioned on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_sponsor_a_new_contributor, so I better ask. :) I can't really review the package, though, as I have no access to MS VPN infrastructure. Just a quick note on the versioned/unversioned library discussion: The idea behind the guideline is to keep the runtime dependencies in the non-devel package and move the devel ones to there. Usually this means package the versioned one(s) including the real lib and versioned symlinks to main or libs packages and keep the unversioned symlink to the devel package. From the discussion it looks like in this case the library is just dumped into an unversioned file, so it is OK to keep it in the main package. The guidelines kindly ask for the packager to also kindly ask of upstream to start versioning their libs in the next release. :) Welcome to Fedora, Andreas!!! The FE-NEEDSPONSOR blocker outlines it itself - remove the blocker once sponsored. I've removed the static libraries, changed the man files and added macros where possible. I think it makes sense to also include this package in the EPEL repositories, as I expect people using this packages in their company environment. Updated SPEC and SRPM are on my server Spec URL: http://www.muehlemann.net/rpm/sstp-client.spec SRPM URL: http://www.muehlemann.net/rpm/sstp-client-1.0.8-1.fc17.src.rpm *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 976770 *** |