Spec Name or Url: http://helena.bawue.de/~ixs/ser/ser.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://helena.bawue.de/~ixs/ser/ser-0.9.6-1.src.rpm Everything else: http://helena.bawue.de/~ixs/ser/ Description: A high-performance, configurable SIP server. It can act as registrar, proxy or redirect server. It features an application-server interface, presence support, SMS gateway, SIMPLE2Jabber gateway, RADIUS/syslog accounting and authorization, server status monitoring, FCP security, etc.
*** Bug 180344 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
First look... builds in mock on development, results of rpmlint: [jcollie@lt16585 result]$ rpmlint ser-*0.9.6-1.i386.rpm W: ser doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/ser-0.9.6/Jabber/regjab.pl perl(DBD::mysql) W: ser doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/ser-0.9.6/Jabber/regjab.pl /usr/bin/perl W: ser doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/ser-0.9.6/Jabber/regjab.pl perl(Socket) Perhaps renaming this to .txt will prevent rpm from picking up the dependencies? W: ser service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/ser Please patch so that SER doesn't get enabled by default. W: ser-mysql spelling-error-in-description persistant persistent W: ser-postgresql spelling-error-in-description persistant persistent Minor, but might as well fix since we're at it. W: ser-postgresql doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/ser-postgresql-0.9.6/copy_to_psql /usr/bin/perl Perhaps renaming to .txt again will prevent RPM from picking up the dependency. W: ser-serweb summary-ended-with-dot Web interface for ser user self-provisioning and administration. Please fix. E: ser-serweb version-control-internal-file /usr/share/serweb/templates/cache/.cvsignore E: ser-serweb zero-length /usr/share/serweb/templates/cache/.cvsignore Delete. W: ser-serweb non-conffile-in-etc /etc/httpd/conf.d/serweb.conf Mark as %config(noreplace) E: ser-serweb version-control-internal-file /usr/share/serweb/templates/configs/.cvsignore E: ser-serweb zero-length /usr/share/serweb/templates/configs/.cvsignore Delete. E: ser-serweb version-control-internal-file /usr/share/serweb/templates/templates_c/.cvsignore Delete. E: ser-serweb version-control-internal-file /usr/share/serweb/html/.cvsignore E: ser-serweb zero-length /usr/share/serweb/html/.cvsignore Delete.
.spec is updated. I opted to remove the execute permissions on the perl scripts in the %docdir. That is the preferred solution, even though rpmlint complains now with an Error and not a Warning. *shrug*
Please bump the revision number, even when the package is in the review process.
Look also at the https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=173028
(In reply to comment #5) > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=173028 I noticed that. But as nothing happened there in the last 2 months, I thought that package was probably dead. Are you planning on maintaining the ser package in the future? Should we get together and do it?
I'm going to close this review request and mark it as a duplicate of #173028. Andreas, perhaps you and Peter can work together to get SER into FE. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 173028 ***
(In reply to comment #4) > Please bump the revision number, even when the package is in the review process. Uhm. As far as I know, this is not a requirement. And personally, I do not believe in needlessly bumping a release number. When the package is introduced into the repository, every change should be reflected by the release number, but as long as it's in the review process, this is IMHO unnecessary. But if you insist, I can bump up the releasenumber. Everything to please the reviewer. ;-D
(In reply to comment #7) > I'm going to close this review request and mark it as a duplicate of #173028. > Andreas, perhaps you and Peter can work together to get SER into FE. > > *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 173028 *** The spec in 173028 is the template spec delivered with the ser-tarball. Basically it's crap.
(In reply to comment #9) > (In reply to comment #7) > > I'm going to close this review request and mark it as a duplicate of #173028. > > Andreas, perhaps you and Peter can work together to get SER into FE. > > > > *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 173028 *** > > The spec in 173028 is the template spec delivered with the ser-tarball. > Basically it's crap. The quality of the spec file that Peter submitted isn't the issue - Peter had his review request first and should have been contacted first to see what the status of his package was. Since Peter still seems to be around let's let him decide if he wants to defer packaging SER to Andreas.
According to Peter in #173028 it would be okay for me to introduce ser into extras, given that some plugins are packaged as subpackages. Jeff? That's okay with you?
(In reply to comment #11) > According to Peter in #173028 it would be okay for me to introduce ser into > extras, given that some plugins are packaged as subpackages. > > Jeff? That's okay with you? Fine by me.
*** Bug 173028 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Great. In that case, I suggest we'll wait a few more days for peter to respond to my request for clarification about packaging the pa, cpl-c and jabber plugins as a seperate package, and then do a final review of the spec. okay?
Jeff? I haven't heard back from Peter yet. Shall we go ahead and do a review of the package as is?
(In reply to comment #15) > Jeff? I haven't heard back from Peter yet. Shall we go ahead and do a review of > the package as is? I'll try and do the full review sometime today, but it might be this evening before I can get to it.
> About the different packages: > But about the jabber, cpl-c and pa modules, I'm not so sure. All they depend > on are libxml2, expat and pthread. I think that in any case it's a generally a good idea to split a package into a subpackages especialy if authors provide plugin-mechanism for their application. I personally prefer splitting to as many packages as could. Why break modularization and provide one big rpm? Actually, I think that the question must be "why not to split SER into subackages" rather than "why split...?" :)
Here's the full review: - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. Not OK: [jcollie@lt16585 result]$ rpmlint ser-*.i386.rpm | grep -v debuginfo W: ser-postgresql doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/ser-postgresql-0.9.6/copy_to_psql /usr/bin/perl Remove execute permission from this script and dependency shouldn't be picked up. - MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK - MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec OK - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. OK, with the following notes: Could the serweb html files be moved to /var/www/html/serweb? This could potentially be a problem with SELinux, as well as conforming more to existing practice. I see that serweb includes an (old) copy of the Smarty templating system. Smarty is already in FE. Is it possible to remove the copy from serweb and use the newer version from FE? It looks like you could delete everything but smarty_serweb.php. After patching up that file (and manybe some others) you should be able to use the FE version. - MUST: The package must be licensed with an open-source compatible license and meet other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. OK (GPL) - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK - MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. OK - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. OK - MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora Extras is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest ([WWW] http://www.ioccc.org/). OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. OK 31031225d483c0d5ac43e8eb5d0428e0 originals/ser-0.9.6_src.tar.gz fa0647598c9370c91650386befd63fba originals/serweb-0.9.4.tar.gz 31031225d483c0d5ac43e8eb5d0428e0 sources/ser-0.9.6_src.tar.gz fa0647598c9370c91650386befd63fba sources/serweb-0.9.4.tar.gz - MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. OK (builds on i386/devel & i386/FC4) - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch needs to have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have bugzilla entries during the review process, so they should put this description in the comment until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and replace the long explanation with the bug number. The bug should be marked as blocking one (or more) of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues: [WWW] FE-ExcludeArch-x86, [WWW] FE-ExcludeArch-x64, [WWW] FE-ExcludeArch-ppc OK - MUST: A package must not contain any BuildRequires that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. OK - MUST: All other Build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. OK - MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. OK (no localized files) - MUST: If the package contains shared library files located in the dynamic linker's default paths, that package must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. If the package has multiple subpackages with libraries, each subpackage should also have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig. An example of the correct syntax for this is: %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig OK - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. OK (not relocatable) - MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. The exception to this are directories listed explicitly in the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard ([WWW] http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html), as it is safe to assume that those directories exist. Not OK (/etc/ser not owned by main package.) - MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. Not OK (/etc/ser/serweb is duplicated between main package and serweb subpackage.) - MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. OK - MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). OK - MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. Not OK (%clean section uses $RPM_BUILD_ROOT while %{buildroot} is used elsewhere.) - MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. OK - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -docs subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity) OK - MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. OK - MUST: Header files or static libraries must be in a -devel package. OK - MUST: Files used by pkgconfig (.pc files) must be in a -devel package. OK - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. OK - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. OK - MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. OK - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. This is described in detail in the desktop files section of Packaging Guidelines. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. OK - MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora Extras should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. OK - SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. OK - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. OK - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. OK (build in mock devel/i386) - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Tested i386/devel and i386/FC4. - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. OK (only main package tested) - SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. OK - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. OK Needs a bit more work, and then I'll approve it...
Also, it would be nice to have the radius modules, but since that appears to need the radiusclient-ng package that can wait until radiusclient-ng is included in FE.
> W: ser-postgresql doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/ser-postgresql-0.9.6/copy_to_psql /usr/bin/perl Thanks. That's fixed now. > Not OK (/etc/ser not owned by main package.) Fixed. > Could the serweb html files be moved to /var/www/html/serweb? This > could potentially be a problem with SELinux, as well as conforming > more to existing practice. Let me look into this. I oriented myself at the squirrelmail package, which is one of the few webapps included in RHEL and Fedora. This package has its datafiles in /usr/share/%{name}. But the part about depending on smarty and removing the internal smarty_template system is a good idea. I'll see to it, that this part is changed. Good idea security-wise.
Uhm. I just tried removing smarty from serweb in favour of using the system-installed one. Unfortunately, I failed horribly. ;) The default smarty code is extended quite a bit by different plugins included by serweb. This might pose a problem. Thus I'd suggest, we postpone the smarty work a bit and include the ser package as is for now. I just updated the spec, to fix the remaining problems but left the smarty work for later.
I'm still getting some files listed twice: warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/dictionary.ser warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/ser.cfg warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/serweb warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/serweb/config.php warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/serweb/config_data_layer.php warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/serweb/config_domain_defaults.php warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/serweb/config_lang.php warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/serweb/config_paths.php warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/serweb/set_domain.php
(In reply to comment #22) > I'm still getting some files listed twice: > > warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/dictionary.ser > warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/ser.cfg > warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/serweb > warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/serweb/config.php > warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/serweb/config_data_layer.php > warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/serweb/config_domain_defaults.php > warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/serweb/config_lang.php > warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/serweb/config_paths.php > warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/serweb/set_domain.php I was going to take a look at this but the only spec URL I can see in this ticket seems to be for the initial submission. Where's the latest one?
(In reply to comment #23) > (In reply to comment #22) > > I'm still getting some files listed twice: > > > > warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/dictionary.ser > > warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/ser.cfg > > warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/serweb > > warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/serweb/config.php > > warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/serweb/config_data_layer.php > > warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/serweb/config_domain_defaults.php > > warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/serweb/config_lang.php > > warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/serweb/config_paths.php > > warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/serweb/set_domain.php > > I was going to take a look at this but the only spec URL I can see in this > ticket seems to be for the initial submission. Where's the latest one? Andreas has been updating the SPEC/SRPM without bumping the release number. The new package process guideline should be revised to discourage this.
(In reply to comment #24) > (In reply to comment #23) > > (In reply to comment #22) > > > I'm still getting some files listed twice: > > > > > > warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/dictionary.ser > > > warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/ser.cfg > > > warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/serweb > > > warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/serweb/config.php > > > warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/serweb/config_data_layer.php > > > warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/serweb/config_domain_defaults.php > > > warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/serweb/config_lang.php > > > warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/serweb/config_paths.php > > > warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/serweb/set_domain.php > > > > I was going to take a look at this but the only spec URL I can see in this > > ticket seems to be for the initial submission. Where's the latest one? > > Andreas has been updating the SPEC/SRPM without bumping the release number. The > new package process guideline should be revised to discourage this. Agreed. The guidelines should also encourage the addition of changelog information in the spec during the review process.
(In reply to comment #22) > I'm still getting some files listed twice: > > warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/dictionary.ser > warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/ser.cfg > warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/serweb > warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/serweb/config.php > warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/serweb/config_data_layer.php > warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/serweb/config_domain_defaults.php > warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/serweb/config_lang.php > warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/serweb/config_paths.php > warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/serweb/set_domain.php Andreas, any updates on this? If you can get the duplicate files problem taken care of I think that I can approve this package.
Okay. Sorry for the delay, I was on vacation. The spec and srpms are updated. And for the next release, I'm even gonna bump the release number. ;) I hope I fixed the "file listed twice" part. Where did you see that warning in the past? During the rpmbuild?
(In reply to comment #27) > Okay. Sorry for the delay, I was on vacation. > The spec and srpms are updated. And for the next release, I'm even gonna bump > the release number. ;) > I hope I fixed the "file listed twice" part. > Where did you see that warning in the past? During the rpmbuild? Still getting some duplicate file warnings, although fewer than before. Yes, the error shows up during rpmbuild. > warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/dictionary.ser > warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/ser.cfg > warning: File listed twice: /etc/ser/serweb Also, these lines in the latest spec file are incorrect: > %dir %{_sysconfdir}/ser/* > %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/ser I think that what you really probably want is: %dir %{_sysconfdir}/ser %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/dictionary.ser %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/ser.cfg %dir %{_sysconfdir}/ser/serweb %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/ser/serweb/*.php
Okay, I think I fixed the duplicate file issue. New SRPM: http://home.bawue.de/~ixs/ser-0.9.6-2.src.rpm New SPEC: http://home.bawue.de/~ixs/ser.spec
Shouldn't those URLs should be: New SRPM: http://home.bawue.de/~ixs/ser/ser-0.9.6-2.src.rpm New SPEC: http://home.bawue.de/~ixs/ser/ser.spec Anyway, I found them, and it looks good. APPROVED