Spec URL: http://topdog-software.com/oss/SRPMS/fedora/ike/ike.spec SRPM URL: http://topdog-software.com/oss/SRPMS/fedora/ike/ike-2.1.5-0.1.rc2.fc11.src.rpm Description: This free IPSEC VPN client can be used to communicate with Open Source IPSEC VPN servers as well as some commercial IPSEC VPN servers. * Rpmlint is clean * Scratch build - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1617339
Hello, (The official 2.1.5 is out now, by the way.) I'm not entirely sure where you get the "Sleepycat" license from... is the license used in LICENSE.TXT just word-for-word identical for that? Is there an email thread somewhere? Two rpmlint issues: Fix the init script (see below). Use the %cmake macro... this avoids/fixes a rpmlint error on the debuginfo package (see below). http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/cmake https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Debuginfo#Useless_or_incomplete_debuginfo_packages_due_to_packaging_issues (esp. the note about CFLAGS, ...) $ rpmlint -vi /var/lib/mock/fedora-12-x86_64/result/ike-* ike.src: I: checking ike.x86_64: I: checking ike.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/iked The service is enabled by default after "chkconfig --add"; for security reasons, most services should not be. Use "-" as the default runlevel in the init script's "chkconfig:" line and/or remove the "Default-Start:" LSB keyword to fix this if appropriate for this service. ike-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking ike-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources This debuginfo package appears to contain debug symbols but no source files. This is often a sign of binaries being unexpectedly stripped too early during the build, or being compiled without compiler debug flags (which again often is a sign of distro's default compiler flags ignored which might have security consequences), or other compiler flags which result in rpmbuild's debuginfo extraction not working as expected. Verify that the binaries are not unexpectedly stripped and that the intended compiler flags are used. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Thanks.
- The license is based on the text in LICENSE.TXT, i have sent a mail to the devel list to clarify this. - %cmake macro implemented - Given the fact that this is a desktop app, users expect that it should just work on installation, disabling the service would prevent this from happening. So i think it is best to leave the service default enabled. - Updated spec and srpm http://www.topdog-software.com/oss/SRPMS/fedora/ike/ike-2.1.5-1.fc12.src.rpm http://www.topdog-software.com/oss/SRPMS/fedora/ike/ike.spec
On checking the devel list achives, i can confirm that it is indeed the sleepycat license. http://lists.shrew.net/mailman/htdig/vpn-devel/2007-October/000020.html
Updated spec and srpm http://www.topdog-software.com/oss/SRPMS/fedora/ike/ike-2.1.5-2.fc12.src.rpm http://www.topdog-software.com/oss/SRPMS/fedora/ike/ike.spec
There seem to be some problems. I want to create the packages standing above. But when it has compiled, libs are missing bei all ike* binaries. These libs were created by cmake during the compile process in the ike package, but they were not be installed by cmake, so rpmbuild missed to add them to the package. Because i got no idea about cmake, i had some lines in the spec file. This spec file will be added as an attachment here and later i will post a link with a ready rpm x86_64 package. Greeze
Created attachment 435994 [details] New ike respecting different lib dependings.
My suggestion for this package: SPEC: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/ike/ike.spec SRPM: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/ike/ike-2.1.7-1.fc13.src.rpm
Because I have found some cmake related issues which caused the unavailbility of some so files build by this package, I have created a new release of it: SPEC: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/ike/ike.spec SRPM: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/ike/ike-2.1.7-2.fc13.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #7) Jochen, you should not add your own version of the package here. We have a process to deal with reviews that stall.[0] If it turns out that Andrew isn't interested in working on this package any more, you will be able to close this review request and open a new request for your version of the package. Andrew, could you please let us know if you still want to package ike for Fedora? Cheers Rudi [0] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Policy#Submitter_not_responding
I wasn't technically non responsive, no one picked up this review so there was no point in continuing to work on it, as am on vacation from fedora work if Jochen wants to continue working on this and someone is willing to review then so be it.
@Andrea, I assume that you are be the maintainer of this package. Because I'm interested to see this package in Fedora and have found any issue on it, I have post my suggestion for this package on comment #8
Is anything going to happen here? Jochen, if you wish to submit this, I suggest you open a new ticket and just close this one as a duplicate. If you don't wish to submit it, would you want to review it? And if so, would Andrew want to continue working on this? This is the second oldest review ticket that's not assigned to someone, and it would be really nice to either move forward with it or close it out.
Jason if you can review it i am still willing to make some time to work on it, In certain situations this package is really valuable due to the interop that it provides to several vpn implementations.
I'll add it to my list. My list isn't short, though, so it may be a while.
Thank you.
Have you looked at the spec Jochen suggested? I did a quick comparison and while they seem significantly different on the surface, the main difference seems to be breaking out the desktop and logrotate stuff out to separate SourceN: files, which honestly makes little difference to me although I suppose Jochen's method looks a little simpler. Is there anything you'd want to incorporate from his spec? Also, is there anything to comment 5?
I was building on 32bit before, but build on 64bit these days if there any issues i will fix them. I will see if i can incorporate some of the suggestions. I will post an updated spec and srpm when am done.
I have gone with Jochem's spec. Please find updated spec and srpm http://www.topdog-software.com/oss/SRPMS/fedora/ike/ike-2.1.7-3.fc14.src.rpm http://www.topdog-software.com/oss/SRPMS/fedora/ike/ike.spec
Is there reason not to use qt4 version (2.2.0-beta-1)? qt3 is obsoleted and maybe will be retired soon or later.
2.2.x branch is not a stable release
(In reply to comment #20) > 2.2.x branch is not a stable release Packaging of not stable releases is not forbidden and used often enough.
I am aware of that but i would rather go with the stable version.
It is foolish and ill-advised to encourage the packaging of unreleased versions or unstable releases. Unfortunately now after these three weeks I'm out of free time, so I don't know when I'll have a chance to get back to this.
(In reply to comment #23) > packaging of unreleased versions 2.2.0-beta-1 version is released. > or unstable releases Upstream can be asked about how "unstable" this release and is it good enough to package it.
If it was good enough (i.e fully tested and relatively glitch free and feature stable) for use it would be a stable release.
(In reply to comment #25) There may be many reasons why qt4 version is still in development branch. Is real quality of 2.2.0-beta1 release not sufficient to package it now?
(In reply to comment #23) > Unfortunately now after these three weeks I'm out of free time, so I don't know > when I'll have a chance to get back to this. I'm happy to take this up -- I should be able to do a review in the next day or two.
What known about plans fro making 2.2.0 stable release or RC's?
Andrew -- rpmlint shows some problems: $ rpmlint /home/rlandmann/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/ike-2.1.7-3.fc14.x86_64.rpm ike.x86_64: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/logrotate.d/ike ike.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /etc/logrotate.d/ike ike.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libith.so ike.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/liblog.so ike.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libip.so ike.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libike.so ike.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libpfk.so ike.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libidb.so ike.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/iked 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings. Please update the spec file so that you: * install /etc/logrotate.d/ike with mode 644 * put the .so files in a -devel subpackage I agree with your reasoning about having the service enabled and ready to use on installation. When you've rebuilt the SRPM to address the above points, verify the rpmlint output and I'll complete this review. Cheers Rudi
Rudi The libs are required by the binaries so putting them in a devel package is not really an option as the binaries will not work without the libs.
(In reply to comment #30) > Rudi > > The libs are required by the binaries so putting them in a devel package is not > really an option as the binaries will not work without the libs. Fair enough :) So, fix the perms on the logrotate file and I think we're done here.
The perms have been fixed in this updated version http://www.topdog-software.com/oss/SRPMS/fedora/ike/ike.spec http://www.topdog-software.com/oss/SRPMS/fedora/ike/ike-2.1.7-4.fc14.src.rpm
Thanks Andrew -- looks good now. Please go ahead and make your SCM request. Thanks for your patience with the process and sorry that this has dragged on for so long. ACCEPT - = N/A / = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [/] Rpmlint output is clean: $ rpmlint SPECS/ike.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint SRPMS/ike-2.1.7-4.fc14.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/ike-2.1.7-4.fc14.x86_64.rpm ike.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libith.so ike.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/liblog.so ike.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libip.so ike.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libike.so ike.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libpfk.so ike.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libidb.so ike.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/iked 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. $ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/ike-debuginfo-2.1.7-4.fc14.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [/] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [/] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [/] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Language specific items [/] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [/] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: Sleepycat [/] 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 is included in %doc. [/] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [/] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. $ md5sum SOURCES/ike-2.1.7-release.tbz2 bc86e101809fc750013e18480c8c1040 SOURCES/ike-2.1.7-release.tbz2 $ md5sum ~/Download/ike-2.1.7-release.tbz2 bc86e101809fc750013e18480c8c1040 /home/rlandmann/Download/ike-2.1.7-release.tbz2 [/] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2909578 [/] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch [/] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly (with the %find_lang macro) [/] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [/] Package does not bundle copies of system libraries [/] Package is not relocatable. [/] Package must own all directories that it creates. [/] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [/] Permissions on files are set properly [/] %files section includes a %defattr(...) line [/] Package consistently uses macros. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [/] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. .so files discussed above [-] -devel packages require base package with full versioning. [/] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [/] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [/] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [/] Filenames are valid UTF-8
Thank you Rudi, for the review, finally this ticket is being put to bed. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: ike Short Description: Shrew Soft VPN Client For Linux Owners: topdog Branches: f13 f14 f15 el5 el6
Git done (by process-git-requests).
ike-2.1.7-4.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ike-2.1.7-4.fc14
ike-2.1.7-4.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ike-2.1.7-4.fc13
ike-2.1.7-4.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ike-2.1.7-4.fc15
ike-2.1.7-4.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 testing repository.
ike-2.1.7-4.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.
ike-2.1.7-4.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository.
ike-2.1.7-4.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository.