Bug 1013999 - Resiprocate enables services by default
Summary: Resiprocate enables services by default
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED EOL
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: resiprocate
Version: 22
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Daniel Pocock
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2013-10-01 08:48 UTC by Juan Orti
Modified: 2016-07-19 10:26 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-07-19 10:26:59 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)
Use macros to install systemd service units (2.83 KB, patch)
2013-10-01 08:48 UTC, Juan Orti
no flags Details | Diff
Patch against the svn version (4.65 KB, patch)
2014-02-06 15:01 UTC, Juan Orti
no flags Details | Diff

Description Juan Orti 2013-10-01 08:48:38 UTC
Created attachment 805764 [details]
Use macros to install systemd service units

Description of problem:
resiprocate enables two services by default: repro.service and resiprocate-turn-server.service

They must be installed, but not enabled by default, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Starting_services_by_default
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Macroized_scriptlets_.28Fedora_18.2B.29

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
resiprocate-1.8.11-3.fc21

How reproducible:
Install and check the services

Steps to Reproduce:
1. yum install resiprocate-repro resiprocate-turn-server.
2. systemctl status repro.service resiprocate-turn-server.service

Actual results:
Services enabled

Expected results:
Services installed but disabled

Additional info:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Starting_services_by_default
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Macroized_scriptlets_.28Fedora_18.2B.29

Comment 1 Juan Orti 2014-02-06 14:19:07 UTC
Any news? If you wish, I can help you as comaintainer.

Comment 2 Daniel Pocock 2014-02-06 14:24:17 UTC
We are just about to release 1.9.0 upstream

I did some work on the spec file in the upstream repository just the other day, would you have a moment to review it and propose any final changes?  If you ignore the changelog entries, everything else is identical to the spec file in Fedora Git

https://svn.resiprocate.org/viewsvn/resiprocate/main/resiprocate.spec.in?view=markup

Comment 3 Juan Orti 2014-02-06 15:00:28 UTC
(In reply to Daniel Pocock from comment #2)
> We are just about to release 1.9.0 upstream
> 
> I did some work on the spec file in the upstream repository just the other
> day, would you have a moment to review it and propose any final changes?  If
> you ignore the changelog entries, everything else is identical to the spec
> file in Fedora Git
> 
> https://svn.resiprocate.org/viewsvn/resiprocate/main/resiprocate.spec.
> in?view=markup

That's great. I have made a patch against the svn using the systemd macros and I also have used %{_sharedstatedir} instead of %{_localstatedir}/lib

Thank you! :)

Comment 4 Juan Orti 2014-02-06 15:01:17 UTC
Created attachment 860221 [details]
Patch against the svn version

Comment 5 Daniel Pocock 2014-02-06 15:12:42 UTC
Thanks for these contributions

I notice your two patches have different variations of the systemd macro stuff

Should I just use 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=860221  ?

Comment 6 Juan Orti 2014-02-06 15:35:15 UTC
(In reply to Daniel Pocock from comment #5)
> Thanks for these contributions
> 
> I notice your two patches have different variations of the systemd macro
> stuff
> 
> Should I just use 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=860221  ?

Yes, use that one.

Comment 7 Daniel Pocock 2014-02-06 19:59:58 UTC
Thanks for that, it is now committed to SVN and cherry picked to the 1.9 release branch we are working on.

Can you let me know which Fedora versions you tried it on?  If I understand correctly, I can push the v1.9.0 package to Fedora 19, 20 and rawhide when it is released?  Or should it just go into rawhide and leave existing F19 and F20 users with 1.8.x?

Comment 8 Juan Orti 2014-02-09 22:13:11 UTC
I'm trying repro and return in F20.

About the 1.9.0 release, I'm not sure about releasing to F19 and F20, if it is going to break existing setups, I'm against it. Probably it's better to release only to rawhide-F21

Comment 9 Jaroslav Reznik 2015-03-03 17:20:26 UTC
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 22 development cycle.
Changing version to '22'.

More information and reason for this action is here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Program_Management/HouseKeeping/Fedora22

Comment 10 Fedora End Of Life 2016-07-19 10:26:59 UTC
Fedora 22 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2016-07-19. Fedora 22 is
no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further
security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug.

If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of
Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you
are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the
current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this
bug.

Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.