Spec URL: http://rmeggins.fedorapeople.org/389-admin.spec SRPM URL: http://rmeggins.fedorapeople.org/389-admin-1.1.7-5.src.rpm Description: 389 Administration Server is an HTTP agent that provides management features for 389 Directory Server This is just a package rename - from fedora-ds-admin to 389-admin - I have added the appropriate provides and obsoletes: Provides: fedora-ds-admin = %{version}-%{release} Obsoletes: fedora-ds-admin < 1.1.7-5
Builds cleanly in mock
See also https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/1380
Sorry to bug you again but rpmlint also doesn't like this: [felix@polaris result]$ rpmlint *.rpm 389-admin 389-admin.src: W: strange-permission 389-admin-git.sh 0775 389-admin.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post chmod 389-admin.x86_64: W: incoherent-init-script-name dirsrv-admin 389-admin.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libds-admin-serv.so.0.0.0 __gxx_personality_v0 389-admin.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libds-admin-serv.so.0.0.0 deleteValue 389-admin.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libds-admin-serv.so.0.0.0 PR_ReadDir 389-admin.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libds-admin-serv.so.0.0.0 PR_GetHostByName 389-admin.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libds-admin-serv.so.0.0.0 PR_SetError 389-admin.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libds-admin-serv.so.0.0.0 psetGetObjectClass 389-admin.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libds-admin-serv.so.0.0.0 PR_Sleep 389-admin.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libds-admin-serv.so.0.0.0 PR_InitializeNetAddr 389-admin.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libds-admin-serv.so.0.0.0 PR_Open 389-admin.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libds-admin-serv.so.0.0.0 PR_GetFileInfo 389-admin.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libds-admin-serv.so.0.0.0 PR_Seek 389-admin.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libds-admin-serv.so.0.0.0 PR_Delete 389-admin.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libds-admin-serv.so.0.0.0 PR_FileDesc2NativeHandle 389-admin.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libds-admin-serv.so.0.0.0 PR_CloseDir 389-admin.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libds-admin-serv.so.0.0.0 PR_snprintf 389-admin.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libds-admin-serv.so.0.0.0 PR_Connect 389-admin.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libds-admin-serv.so.0.0.0 PR_GetOSError 389-admin.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libds-admin-serv.so.0.0.0 PR_LockFile 389-admin.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libds-admin-serv.so.0.0.0 PR_smprintf 389-admin.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libds-admin-serv.so.0.0.0 PR_Write 389-admin.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libds-admin-serv.so.0.0.0 PL_strcasecmp 389-admin.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libds-admin-serv.so.0.0.0 PL_strncpyz 389-admin.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libds-admin-serv.so.0.0.0 PR_smprintf_free 389-admin.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libds-admin-serv.so.0.0.0 PR_OpenDir 389-admin.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libds-admin-serv.so.0.0.0 SSLSocket_init 389-admin.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libds-admin-serv.so.0.0.0 PR_SecondsToInterval 389-admin.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libds-admin-serv.so.0.0.0 PR_UnlockFile 389-admin.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libds-admin-serv.so.0.0.0 PR_Read 389-admin.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libds-admin-serv.so.0.0.0 PR_NewTCPSocket 389-admin.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libds-admin-serv.so.0.0.0 PL_strdup 389-admin.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libds-admin-serv.so.0.0.0 PR_TLockFile 389-admin.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libds-admin-serv.so.0.0.0 PR_Close 389-admin.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libds-admin-serv.so.0.0.0 PL_strfree 389-admin.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libds-admin-serv.so.0.0.0 PR_GetError 389-admin.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libds-admin-serv.so.0.0.0 PR_vsnprintf 389-admin.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post chmod 389-admin.x86_64: W: incoherent-init-script-name dirsrv-admin 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 40 warnings.
Updated Source URL: http://port389.org/sources/389-admin-1.1.7.tar.bz2 md5sum 389-admin-1.1.7.tar.bz2 81c41383af361e5591650edb38c3f3d8 389-admin-1.1.7.tar.bz2 sha1sum 389-admin-1.1.7.tar.bz2 f1ac01ab09afb65d929f4552951240a1c246971d 389-admin-1.1.7.tar.bz2 SRPM URL: http://rmeggins.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/389-admin-1.1.7-5.src.rpm Other files mentioned in Source in the spec file are in http://rmeggins.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview 389-admin.src: W: strange-permission 389-admin-git.sh 0775 - Fixed - see new SRPM above 389-admin.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post chmod - this is to work around a bug in rpm - if you mark a file/directory as config(noreplace) rpm will preserve the file contents, but not the ownership/permissions. 389-admin.x86_64: W: incoherent-init-script-name dirsrv-admin - this is intentional - we did not want the service name to be the same as the package name because we knew we were going to change the package name 389-admin.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libds-admin-serv.so.0.0.0 PR_vsnprintf - How can I fix these? Do they need to be fixed? AFAICT fedora-ds-admin has been running with this "problem" for years with no ill effects.
new SRPM: http://rmeggins.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/389-admin-1.1.7-5.src.rpm new Source URL: http://port389.org/sources/389-admin-1.1.7.tar.bz2 md5sum 389-admin-1.1.7.tar.bz2 cd3fd64fabc0265e2765101d032d7150 389-admin-1.1.7.tar.bz2 sha1sum 389-admin-1.1.7.tar.bz2 a594b0f3b8b5614a5f9a8a417ff5c394ecd7a21d 389-admin-1.1.7.tar.bz2 This fixes the undefined-non-weak-symbol warnings
Any takers? What can I do to help this along?
We are waiting for https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/1425
But is the package approved? If so, I can go ahead and do the CVS request, then cvs-import, while the tagging issue is being resolved.
The tagging issue has been resolved. This this package request approved?
Good: + Name of the SPEC file matches with package name. + Pakcage name fullfill naming guidelines + URL tag show on proper project homepage + Package contains valid license tag + License tag state GPLv2 as a valid OSS license + Package contains no subpackages + Provides/Obsoletes statement for renaming process are ok. + BuildRoot will be cleaned at the beginnung of %clean and %install + Could download upstream tar ball via spectool -g + Package source matches with upstream (md5sum: cd3fd64fabc0265e2765101d032d7150) + Package contains proper BuildRoot definition + Package honour $RPM_OPT_FLAGS + Package support SMP-enabled build + Local build works fine + Rpmlint is silent on debuginfo rpm + Local install/uninstall works fine + Scratch build works fine + Files has proper files permission + %files stanza contains no duplicated entries + All package files are owned by this package + No package files are belong to a other package + %doc stanza is mall, no extra sub package is required + Package contains proper changelog Bad: - I have found source files which state GPLv2+ or AL 2.0 as license. Please clarify the stated license on the license tag - Package only contains the LICENSE file, but the COPYING file, which contains the verbatin text of the GPLv2 is not included - Usage of the %{_initrddir} macro is obsoleted - Why do you set the owner/permission of some files explicitly in the %post scriptlet? - warning from rpmlint about source rpm. rpmlint 389-admin-1.1.7-5.fc11.src.rpm 389-admin.src: W: strange-permission 389-admin-git.sh 0775 - Warnings from rpmlint about the binary rpm $ rpmlint 389-admin-1.1.7-5.fc11.x86_64.rpm 389-admin.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post chmod 389-admin.x86_64: W: incoherent-init-script-name dirsrv-admin
(In reply to comment #10) > Bad: > - I have found source files which state GPLv2+ or AL 2.0 as > license. Please clarify the stated license on the license tag > - Package only contains the LICENSE file, but the COPYING file, > which contains the verbatin text of the GPLv2 is not included > - Usage of the %{_initrddir} macro is obsoleted - all of the files in the adminserver (except the Apache modules) should have been gplv2 - this has been fixed, including the LICENSE file - there are two Apache modules included with the admin server that are licensed under the apl 2.0 - mod_admserv and mod_restartd - these must use the apl because they use apl code - how should I denote this? - fixed _initrddir > - Why do you set the owner/permission of some files explicitly in the > %post scriptlet? There is a "bug" or perhaps it is a feature of rpm that it does not preserve the ownership/permissions of files/directories marked config noreplace. These are files and directories which users are accustomed to changing. If we do not explicitly save and preserve the owner/permission in pre/post, upgrade will break existing installations. I know it is somewhat of a hack, but this is the only way I could get it to work. Suggestions are welcome. > - warning from rpmlint about source rpm. > rpmlint 389-admin-1.1.7-5.fc11.src.rpm > 389-admin.src: W: strange-permission 389-admin-git.sh 0775 - fixed > - Warnings from rpmlint about the binary rpm > $ rpmlint 389-admin-1.1.7-5.fc11.x86_64.rpm > 389-admin.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post chmod > 389-admin.x86_64: W: incoherent-init-script-name dirsrv-admin - the init script and service name are dirsrv-admin - this was a conscious decision not to tie it to the package name new SRPM: http://rmeggins.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/389-admin-1.1.7-5.src.rpm new Spec: http://rmeggins.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/389-admin.spec new Source URL: http://port389.org/sources/389-admin-1.1.7.tar.bz2 md5sum 389-admin-1.1.7.tar.bz2 1844088cbe44bc9eda371ce606a38405 389-admin-1.1.7.tar.bz2 sha1sum 389-admin-1.1.7.tar.bz2 e6f9beea076220f485aa93c990935dd0134a18da 389-admin-1.1.7.tar.bz2
(In reply to comment #11) > under the apl 2.0 - mod_admserv and mod_restartd - these must use the apl > because they use apl code - how should I denote this? > - fixed _initrddir Please add GPLv2+ and ASL 2.0 as license tag > There is a "bug" or perhaps it is a feature of rpm that it does not preserve > the ownership/permissions of files/directories marked config noreplace. These > are files and directories which users are accustomed to changing. If we do not > explicitly save and preserve the owner/permission in pre/post, upgrade will > break existing installations. I know it is somewhat of a hack, but this is the > only way I could get it to work. Suggestions are welcome. It may be nice to open a bug agains rpm to get an 'official' statement.
new SRPM: http://rmeggins.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/389-admin-1.1.7-5.src.rpm new Spec: http://rmeggins.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/389-admin.spec new license tag: License: GPLv2 and ASL 2.0 This is according to the guidelines at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ > It may be nice to open a bug agains rpm to get an 'official' statement. http://rpm.org/ticket/71 But I don't see any other way to fix or work around the problem for now, so I would like to add the package as is, and fix it if/when rpm does.
(In reply to comment #13) > new license tag: > License: GPLv2 and ASL 2.0 Thats is not ok, the file libs/base/nscputil.cpp contains a GPLv2+ license header: * * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License * as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 * of the License, or (at your option) any later version. * > http://rpm.org/ticket/71 > > But I don't see any other way to fix or work around the problem for now, so I > would like to add the package as is, and fix it if/when rpm does. Thats ok, I didn't take a look into the ticket, but my idention was to make sure, that the rpm developers may notified about this issue.
(In reply to comment #14) > (In reply to comment #13) > > > new license tag: > > License: GPLv2 and ASL 2.0 > > Thats is not ok, the file libs/base/nscputil.cpp contains a GPLv2+ license > header: hmm - check the file again - did you download the latest source tarball? md5sum 389-admin-1.1.7.tar.bz2 1844088cbe44bc9eda371ce606a38405 389-admin-1.1.7.tar.bz2 sha1sum 389-admin-1.1.7.tar.bz2 e6f9beea076220f485aa93c990935dd0134a18da 389-admin-1.1.7.tar.bz2
(In reply to comment #15) > (In reply to comment #14) > hmm - check the file again - did you download the latest source tarball? If you have made changes on the original tarball please increase the version number and create a new source RPM. This may be helpful for audit the authentification of the package source file.
(In reply to comment #16) > (In reply to comment #15) > > (In reply to comment #14) > > > hmm - check the file again - did you download the latest source tarball? > > If you have made changes on the original tarball please increase the version > number and create a new source RPM. This may be helpful for audit the > authentification of the package source file. new SRPM: http://rmeggins.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/389-admin-1.1.8-1.src.rpm new Spec: http://rmeggins.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/389-admin.spec new Source URL: http://port389.org/sources/389-admin-1.1.8.tar.bz2 md5sum 389-admin-1.1.8.tar.bz2 6d9ba5141022e10696dc92f296ae5ed3 389-admin-1.1.8.tar.bz2 sha1sum 389-admin-1.1.8.tar.bz2 cc0a718f0725a261b9ea6687ca98a0d5d75c82c3 389-admin-1.1.8.tar.bz2
Good: + Package sources matches with upstream (md5sum: 6d9ba5141022e10696dc92f296ae5ed3) + Specified license on license tag matches with copyright notes on source files Your package is APPROVED !!!
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: 389-admin Short Description: Admin Server for 389 Directory Server Owners: rmeggins nhosoi nkinder Branches: F-10 F-11
cvs done.
cvs import done - built in koji for rawhide
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: 389-admin Short Description: Admin Server for 389 Directory Server Owners: stahnma Branches: EL-4, EL-5
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: 389-adminutil New Branches: epel7 Owners: mreynolds nhosoi nkinder rmeggins
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: 389-admin New Branches: epel7 Owners: mreynolds nhosoi nkinder rmeggins
Git done (by process-git-requests).