Bug 226464 - Merge Review: system-config-network
Merge Review: system-config-network
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Parag AN(पराग)
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
: Reopened
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2007-01-31 16:06 EST by Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Modified: 2009-09-21 16:36 EDT (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2008-04-04 10:18:20 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
panemade: fedora‑review+
kevin: fedora‑cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it 2007-01-31 16:06:10 EST
Fedora Merge Review: system-config-network

Initial Owner: harald@redhat.com
Comment 1 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-09-28 11:37:55 EDT
Need some SPEC cleanups as rpmlint gave me 
system-config-network.src:11: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes isdn-config
system-config-network.src:11: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes internet-config
system-config-network.src:11: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes rp3
system-config-network.src:11: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes
system-config-network.src:25: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes netcfg
system-config-network.src:25: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes
system-config-network.src:25: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes netconfig
==>  The specfile contains an unversioned Obsoletes: token, which will match all
older, equal and newer versions of the obsoleted thing.  This may cause update
problems, restrict future package/provides naming, and may match something it
was originally not inteded to match -- make the Obsoletes versioned if

system-config-network.src:26: W: unversioned-explicit-provides

==>The specfile contains an unversioned Provides: token, which will match all
older, equal, and newer versions of the provided thing.  This may cause
update problems and will make versioned dependencies, obsoletions and conflicts
on the provided thing useless -- make the Provides versioned if possible.

system-config-network.src: W: invalid-license GPL
system-config-network.noarch: W: no-documentation
system-config-network.noarch: W: no-dependency-on usermode
system-config-network.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libglade2
==> You must let rpm find the library dependencies by itself. Do not put unneeded
explicit Requires: tags.

system-config-network.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL
system-config-network.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided isdn-config
system-config-network.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided internet-config
system-config-network.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided rp3
system-config-network-tui.noarch: W: no-documentation
system-config-network-tui.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/system-config-network/netconfpkg/exception.py 0644
system-config-network-tui.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL
==> Update Licenst tag

system-config-network-tui.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided netcfg
system-config-network-tui.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided netconfig
==> If a package is obsoleted by a compatible replacement, the obsoleted package
must also be provided in order to provide clean upgrade paths and not cause
unnecessary dependency breakage.  If the obsoleting package is not a compatible
replacement for the old one, leave out the provides.

  Good to use %defattr(-,root,root,-)

Update package. Better to provide new SPEC and SRPM links for this package
before actually committing in CVS.

Comment 2 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-10-16 01:21:47 EDT
ping? any updates?
Comment 4 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-10-16 08:04:28 EDT
Thanks for updates.
With updated SRPM I got following rpmlint messages
system-config-network.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.4.4 1.4.4-1.fc8
system-config-network.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided rp3
system-config-network.src: W: strange-permission system-config-network.spec 0600

otherwise package looks ok.
Comment 5 Harald Hoyer 2007-10-16 08:20:39 EDT
system-config-network.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.4.4 1.4.4-1.fc8
- minor lazyness, b/c this is upstream and releases are normally not incremented

system-config-network.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided rp3
- The rp3 interface is not provided, but rp3 is obsoleted nevertheless

system-config-network.src: W: strange-permission system-config-network.spec 0600
- will go away, if I build the package in the Fedora infrastructure (this was,
make dist && rpm -ta <tarfile>)
Comment 6 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-10-17 00:39:20 EDT
+ package builds in mock (development i386).
- rpmlint is Not silent for SRPM but Not for RPM.
system-config-network.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.4.4 1.4.4-1.fc8
=> I hope you will take care this message while building package next time.
system-config-network.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided rp3
=>This messages can be ignored for this package.
system-config-network.src: W: strange-permission system-config-network.spec 0600
=> I hope you will take care this message while building package next time.
+ source files match upstream.
9566acdbecea85601ecc39c71a3e24fa  system-config-network-1.4.4.tar.gz
+ package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
+ specfile is properly named, is cleanly written
+ Spec file is written in American English.
+ Spec file is legible.
+ dist tag is present.
+ build root is correct.
+ license is open source-compatible.
+ License text is included in package.
+ %doc files present.
+ BuildRequires are proper.
+ defattr usage is correct.
+ %clean is present.
+ package installed properly.
+ Macro use appears rather consistent.
+ Package contains code.
+ no static libraries.
+ no .pc file present.
+ no -devel subpackage exists.
+ no .la files.
+ translations are available.
+ Does owns the directories it creates.
+ no duplicates in %files.
+ file permissions are appropriate.
+ gtk-update-icon-cache scriptlets are used.
+ Desktop files are handled correctly.
+ package system-config-network-1.4.4-1.fc8 ->
  Provides: internet-config = 0.40-2.1 isdn-config = 0.18-10.70.1
redhat-config-network = 1.4.4
  Requires: /usr/bin/python gnome-python2 gnome-python2-canvas pygtk2
pygtk2-libglade system-config-network-tui = 1.4.4-1.fc8 usermode
+ package system-config-network-tui-1.4.4-1.fc8 ->
  Provides: config(system-config-network-tui) = 1.4.4-1.fc8 netcfg = 2.36-3p.1
netconf = 0.1-1.1 redhat-config-network-tui = 1.4.4
  Requires: /bin/sh /usr/bin/python config(system-config-network-tui) =
1.4.4-1.fc8 initscripts >= 0:5.99 kudzu newt-python pciutils python rhpl >=
0:0.193 rpm-python usermode
+ GUI app.

Comment 7 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-10-29 04:39:59 EDT
is the srpm given in comment #3 is built?
Comment 8 Harald Hoyer 2007-10-29 06:46:53 EDT
no, not yet, because F8 was closed
Comment 9 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-11-12 05:48:01 EST
Can we now import new SRPM in rawhide?
Comment 11 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-11-12 07:28:35 EST
you can build for devel also and then we can CLOSE this review.
Comment 12 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-11-29 07:29:58 EST
I don't see approved package built for f8 or f9.
Comment 14 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-12-06 09:36:28 EST
Comment 15 Harald Hoyer 2008-03-26 21:08:53 EDT
Package Change Request
Package Name: system-config-network
New Branches: F-10
Comment 16 Parag AN(पराग) 2008-03-26 21:40:03 EDT
I will prefer this review done by me to be in assigned state to me :)
Comment 17 Harald Hoyer 2008-03-26 21:42:40 EDT
You already closed it :) 

Parag AN(पराग)  	2007-12-06 09:36 EST  	Status  	ASSIGNED  	CLOSED
Resolution 	  	RAWHIDE
Comment 18 Parag AN(पराग) 2008-03-26 21:47:29 EDT
Yes I closed it because this package already completed its review and was in
rawhide at time of closing this.

Please don't remove fedora-review+ flags.Therefore setting it again.
Comment 19 Parag AN(पराग) 2008-03-26 21:53:31 EDT
(In reply to comment #16)
> I will prefer this review done by me to be in assigned state to me :)

yup. I mean to say let the reviews be assigned to reviewer at time of closing
reviews. You reset Assigned to nobody@fedoraproject.org

Harald Hoyer  	2008-03-26 21:11 EST  	CC  	    	notting@redhat.com,
AssignedTo 	panemade@gmail.com 	nobody@fedoraproject.org
QAContact 	fedora-package-review@redhat.com 	extras-qa@fedoraproject.org
Resolution 	  	RAWHIDE
Flag 	fedora-cvs+ 	fedora-cvs? 
Comment 20 Harald Hoyer 2008-03-26 22:03:04 EDT
sry, accidently reopened it, while I just should have set the fedora-cvs flag to "?"
Comment 21 Kevin Fenzi 2008-03-26 22:39:42 EDT
cvs done. 

Note that your new F-9 branch is a clone from current devel. 
You will want to do your F-10/unstable work in the devel branch now. 
Comment 22 Parag AN(पराग) 2008-04-04 10:18:20 EDT
No need to open this review now as cvs is done :)

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