Bug 469548 - Review Request: ap-utils - Configure and monitor Wireless Access Points
Review Request: ap-utils - Configure and monitor Wireless Access Points
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
:
Depends On:
Blocks: FE-DEADREVIEW
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2008-11-02 06:06 EST by Fabian Affolter
Modified: 2009-07-09 16:10 EDT (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2009-07-09 16:10:21 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Fabian Affolter 2008-11-02 06:06:20 EST
Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/ap-utils.spec
SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/ap-utils-1.5-1.fc9.src.rpm

Project URL: http://ap-utils.polesye.net/

Description:
Wireless Access Point Utilities for Unix - it's a set of utilities to
configure and monitor Wireless Access Points under Unix using SNMP
and tftp protocol.

* ap-config - to config and get stats from Atmel-MIB based APs and
  devices that support IEEE 802.11 MIB and NWN DOT11EXT MIB
* ap-gl - to config and get stats from Atmel-MIB based APs with
  1.4k.2 firmware
* ap-tftp - command line utility to upgrade AP firmare over tftp
* ap-auth - command line utility to work with mac auth
* ap-mrtg - to get stat from AP and return it in MRTG parsable format
* ap-rrd - to get stat from AP and save it into RRD database
* ap-trapd - to receive, parse, and log trap messages from AP

Koji scratch builds:
F9:  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=914639
F10: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=914644

rpmlint output:
[fab@laptop024 i386]$ rpmlint ap-*
ap-utils.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/ap-config
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

There is nothing for a devel package.

[fab@laptop024 SRPMS]$ rpmlint ap-*
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Comment 1 Alec Leamas 2008-11-21 05:17:29 EST
Hi!

I promised to make yet another review...

Summary: OK besides some missing document files. A question mark on
all the compiler warnigs when building, though.


MUST stuff:
rpmlint must be run on every package...
  -  OK (No errors or warnings on srpm or spec file.)

The package must be named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines .
   - OK

The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, 
   - OK

The package must meet the  Packaging Guidelines .
   - OK.

The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license...
   - OK

The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
   - OK (some files have GPLv+ notices, but GPLv2 is the common denominator).

The text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc
   - OK

The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
   - OK

The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source
   - OK (ebdb2a03302648c939ac965617de2889)

The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms.
   - OK, on my Fedora 9/X86_64 box. Lots of compiler warnings " warning: 
     pointer targets in assignment differ in signedness" while building."
     for constructs with  a short and a literal #define int.
     Seems acceptable to me. (Upstream report?)

All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
   - OK (since mock is OK, see below)

The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
   - OK

Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files 
   - NA

If the package is designed to be relocatable...
   - NA

A package must own all directories that it creates
   - NOK. The %doc section lists  Documentation/*.html Documentation/FAQ
     but these are not present at all in the generated RPM.

A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
   - OK

Permissions on files must be set properly
   - OK

Each package must have a %clean section, rm -rf %{buildroot} 
   - OK

Each package must consistently use macros...
   - OK

The package must contain code, or permissable content.
   - OK

Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage
   - TBD (Havn't seen those HTML files yet).

If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present
   - OK 

Header files must be in a -devel package.
   - NA

Static libraries must be in a -static package.
   - NA

Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must...
   - NA

If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1
   - NA

If a package contains library files with a suffix...
   - NA

devel packages must require the base package using...
   - NA

Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives
   - OK

Packages containing GUI applications...
   - NA (ncurses apps are not considered being graphical)

Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages
   - OK 

At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
   - OK

All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
   - OK

SHOULD 

   - The upstream license file (GPLv2) is present.
   - Localized descriptions are not available what I can see.
   - Builds OK in mock, on a Fedora-9/x86_64 configuration
   - There are no scriptlets.
   - All apps works to the point of a help message or an initial
     ncurses screen.
   - There are no subpackages, pkgconfig  .pc file or file deps.
Comment 2 Fabian Affolter 2008-12-01 06:52:22 EST
Thanks for the review.  I will fix the open issues in the next days.
Comment 3 Fabian Affolter 2008-12-06 08:04:24 EST
(In reply to comment #1)
> The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms.
>    - OK, on my Fedora 9/X86_64 box. Lots of compiler warnings " warning: 
>      pointer targets in assignment differ in signedness" while building."
>      for constructs with  a short and a literal #define int.
>      Seems acceptable to me. (Upstream report?)

I have seen those warning but I don't know to fix them.  I sent a message to their mailing list. Waiting for an answer.

> A package must own all directories that it creates
>    - NOK. The %doc section lists  Documentation/*.html Documentation/FAQ
>      but these are not present at all in the generated RPM.

[fab@laptop024 i386]$ rpmls ap-utils-1.5-1.fc9.i386.rpm 
-rwxr-xr-x  /usr/bin/ap-auth
-rwxr-xr-x  /usr/bin/ap-config
-rwxr-xr-x  /usr/bin/ap-gl
-rwxr-xr-x  /usr/bin/ap-mrtg
-rwxr-xr-x  /usr/bin/ap-rrd
-rwxr-xr-x  /usr/bin/ap-tftp
-rwxr-xr-x  /usr/sbin/ap-trapd
drwxr-xr-x  /usr/share/doc/ap-utils-1.5
-rw-r--r--  /usr/share/doc/ap-utils-1.5/ABOUT-NLS
-rw-r--r--  /usr/share/doc/ap-utils-1.5/AUTHORS
-rw-r--r--  /usr/share/doc/ap-utils-1.5/COPYING
-rw-r--r--  /usr/share/doc/ap-utils-1.5/ChangeLog
-rw-r--r--  /usr/share/doc/ap-utils-1.5/FAQ  <---
-rw-r--r--  /usr/share/doc/ap-utils-1.5/NEWS
-rw-r--r--  /usr/share/doc/ap-utils-1.5/Ovislink-HOWTO.html  <---
-rw-r--r--  /usr/share/doc/ap-utils-1.5/README
-rw-r--r--  /usr/share/doc/ap-utils-1.5/THANKS
-rw-r--r--  /usr/share/doc/ap-utils-1.5/TODO
-rw-r--r--  /usr/share/locale/fr/LC_MESSAGES/ap-utils.mo
-rw-r--r--  /usr/share/locale/nl/LC_MESSAGES/ap-utils.mo
-rw-r--r--  /usr/share/locale/pl/LC_MESSAGES/ap-utils.mo
-rw-r--r--  /usr/share/locale/ro/LC_MESSAGES/ap-utils.mo
-rw-r--r--  /usr/share/locale/tr/LC_MESSAGES/ap-utils.mo
-rw-r--r--  /usr/share/locale/uk/LC_MESSAGES/ap-utils.mo
-rw-r--r--  /usr/share/man/man8/ap-auth.8.gz
-rw-r--r--  /usr/share/man/man8/ap-config.8.gz
-rw-r--r--  /usr/share/man/man8/ap-gl.8.gz
-rw-r--r--  /usr/share/man/man8/ap-mrtg.8.gz
-rw-r--r--  /usr/share/man/man8/ap-tftp.8.gz
-rw-r--r--  /usr/share/man/man8/ap-trapd.8.gz

> Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage
>    - TBD (Havn't seen those HTML files yet).

see above.  It's only one html file.
Comment 4 Fabian Affolter 2009-07-09 16:10:21 EDT
No answer about the compiler warnings.  The upstream project seems to be inactive.  I will leave the spec file and the SRPM in place for a while.

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