Spec URL: http://nucleo.fedorapeople.org/pkg-reviews/udpxy/udpxy.spec SRPM URL: http://nucleo.fedorapeople.org/pkg-reviews/udpxy/udpxy-1.0.16-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: udpxy is a UDP-to-HTTP multicast traffic relay daemon: it forwards UDP traffic from a given multicast subscription to the requesting HTTP client. $ rpmlint udpxy-1.0.16-1.fc13.i686.rpm udpxy-1.0.16-1.fc13.src.rpm udpxy-1.0.16-1.fc13.x86_64.rpm udpxy-debuginfo-1.0.16-1.fc13.i686.rpm udpxy-debuginfo-1.0.16-1.fc13.x86_64.rpm udpxy.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multicast -> Multics, multicolor, multichannel udpxy.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multicast -> Multics, multicolor, multichannel udpxy.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary udpxrec udpxy.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary udpxy udpxy.i686: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/udpxy udpxy.i686: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/udpxy udpxy.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multicast -> Multics, multicolor, multichannel udpxy.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multicast -> Multics, multicolor, multichannel udpxy.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multicast -> Multics, multicolor, multichannel udpxy.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multicast -> Multics, multicolor, multichannel udpxy.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary udpxrec udpxy.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary udpxy udpxy.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/udpxy udpxy.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/udpxy 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 14 warnings.
The service-default-enabled warning must either be fixed or have a _very_ good explanation. Otherwise it is against Fedora's policy ( default disabled )
(In reply to comment #1) > The service-default-enabled warning must either be fixed or have a _very_ good > explanation. Otherwise it is against Fedora's policy ( default disabled ) Fixed. $ rpmlint udpxy-1.0.16-1.fc13.i686.rpm udpxy-1.0.16-1.fc13.src.rpm udpxy-1.0.16-1.fc13.x86_64.rpm udpxy-debuginfo-1.0.16-1.fc13.i686.rpm udpxy-debuginfo-1.0.16-1.fc13.x86_64.rpm udpxy.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multicast -> Multics, multicolor, multichannel udpxy.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multicast -> Multics, multicolor, multichannel udpxy.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary udpxrec udpxy.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary udpxy udpxy.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multicast -> Multics, multicolor, multichannel udpxy.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multicast -> Multics, multicolor, multichannel udpxy.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multicast -> Multics, multicolor, multichannel udpxy.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multicast -> Multics, multicolor, multichannel udpxy.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary udpxrec udpxy.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary udpxy 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.
Were you going to post the fixed package anywhere?
reply to comment #3) > Were you going to post the fixed package anywhere? If you mean service-default-enabled then fixed package was placed on the same link. Only udpxy.init source was changed there.
There's a reason we ask that you increase release for every change and spin a new package, you know.
(In reply to comment #5) > There's a reason we ask that you increase release for every change and spin a > new package, you know. OK. I thought that I should do this when review begins but review not started yet.
The current version seems to be 1.0-Cuipmunk-19, whatever that is.
Waiting for systemd units guidelines. When guidelines will be available I will update spec and src.rpm.
- udpxy 1.0-Chipmunk-19 - service disabled by default - SysV init script replaced with systemd unit http://nucleo.fedorapeople.org/pkg-reviews/udpxy/1.0.19/udpxy.service - options from sysconfdir moved to unit file Spec URL: http://nucleo.fedorapeople.org/pkg-reviews/udpxy/1.0.19/udpxy.spec SRPM URL: http://nucleo.fedorapeople.org/pkg-reviews/udpxy/1.0.19/udpxy-1.0.19-1.fc15.src.rpm Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3086441 $ rpmlint udpxy-1.0.19-1.fc15.i686.rpm udpxy-1.0.19-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm udpxy-debuginfo-1.0.19-1.fc15.i686.rpm udpxy-debuginfo-1.0.19-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm udpxy-1.0.19-1.fc15.src.rpm udpxy.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multicast -> Multics, multicolor, multichannel udpxy.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multicast -> Multics, multicolor, multichannel udpxy.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary udpxrec udpxy.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary udpxy udpxy.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multicast -> Multics, multicolor, multichannel udpxy.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multicast -> Multics, multicolor, multichannel udpxy.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary udpxrec udpxy.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary udpxy udpxy.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multicast -> Multics, multicolor, multichannel udpxy.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multicast -> Multics, multicolor, multichannel udpxy.src:41: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/lib/systemd/system udpxy.src:42: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/lib/systemd/system/%{name}.service udpxy.src:73: E: hardcoded-library-path in /lib/systemd/system/%{name}.service 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 10 warnings.
%{_unitdir} used instead of /lib/systemd/system, so now no hardcoded-library-path rpmlint error. Spec URL: http://nucleo.fedorapeople.org/pkg-reviews/udpxy/1.0.19/udpxy.spec SRPM URL: http://nucleo.fedorapeople.org/pkg-reviews/udpxy/1.0.19/udpxy-1.0.19-1.fc15.src.rpm Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3120223 $ rpmlint udpxy-1.0.19-1.fc15.i686.rpm udpxy-debuginfo-1.0.19-1.fc15.i686.rpm udpxy-1.0.19-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm udpxy-debuginfo-1.0.19-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm udpxy-1.0.19-1.fc15.src.rpm udpxy.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multicast -> Multics, simulcast udpxy.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multicast -> Multics, simulcast udpxy.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary udpxrec udpxy.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary udpxy udpxy.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multicast -> Multics, simulcast udpxy.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multicast -> Multics, simulcast udpxy.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary udpxrec udpxy.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary udpxy udpxy.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multicast -> Multics, simulcast udpxy.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multicast -> Multics, simulcast 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.
It would be great if this 'patch' http://sourceforge.net/projects/udpxy/forums/forum/774009/topic/3706986 is added I'll make standart .patch file if it is needed
We can't apply patches not accepted in upstream. I can backport this patch after it will accepted.
Accodring to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/PatchUpstreamStatus It seems it's enough to provide comment in .spec with link to upstream bugtracker issue with patch. But I think yes we should submit this patch to upstrim in more eligible form then forum post in russian.
Spec URL: https://github.com/vanaf/udpxy-fedora/blob/e30a09b88cfe3582f0416ed90a71a9a49ef630af/udpxy.spec SRPM URL: http://baldr.sgu.ru/rpm/udpxy-1.0.19-2.fc15.src.rpm - init script reverted for compatibility - options moved to sysconfdir - systemd type now 'forking' I think it's better for options to stay at /etc/sysconfig then in .service file Build with patch(1.0.19-3) is not yet published, it will be published shortly after patch will be submitted to upstream
Spec URL: https://github.com/vanaf/udpxy-fedora/blob/fc54a06c2ee2ca79260880f2d62b8503b9ec25a0/udpxy.spec SRPM URL: http://baldr.sgu.ru/rpm/udpxy-1.0.19-3.fc15.src.rpm Content-type header addition patch added. https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3317594&group_id=214718&atid=1030796
SysV initscripts are now considered obsolete for Fedora 15+ https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Systemd So I would prefer to not add init script. Using /etc/sysconfig is also obsolete. All options should be set now in unit file. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd#Support_for_.2Fetc.2Fsysconfig_files It is should be clear what status of patch in upstream is it accepted or rejected, so I will wait for udpxy author reply http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3317594&group_id=214718&atid=1030796 Contacting author directly by sending e-mail (see README file) also may clarify is your patch will be accepted. Your udpxy.service with Type=forking actually not working: udpxy.service - UDP-to-HTTP multicast traffic relay daemon Loaded: loaded (/lib/systemd/system/udpxy.service) Active: inactive (dead) since Fri, 17 Jun 2011 01:44:05 +0300; 1s ago Process: 2403 ExecStart=/usr/bin/udpxy $OPTIONS (code=exited, status=0/SUCCESS) Main PID: 2404 (code=exited, status=0/SUCCESS) Service also dead with Type=forking if replace $OPTIONS with -S -p 4022: udpxy.service - UDP-to-HTTP multicast traffic relay daemon Loaded: loaded (/lib/systemd/system/udpxy.service) Active: inactive (dead) since Fri, 17 Jun 2011 02:00:00 +0300; 6s ago Process: 2760 ExecStart=/usr/bin/udpxy -S -p 4022 (code=exited, status=0/SUCCESS) Main PID: 2761 (code=exited, status=0/SUCCESS) CGroup: name=systemd:/system/udpxy.service But service runs well with Type=singe and "do not run as daemon" option.
Problem with Type=forking exists :( but reproduces rather rarely [root@vannew ~]# systemctl status udpxy.service udpxy.service - UDP-to-HTTP multicast traffic relay daemon Loaded: loaded (/lib/systemd/system/udpxy.service) Active: active (running) since Fri, 17 Jun 2011 15:49:55 +0400; 8min ago Process: 26428 ExecStart=/usr/bin/udpxy $OPTIONS (code=exited, status=0/SUCCESS) Main PID: 26430 (udpxy) CGroup: name=systemd:/system/udpxy.service └ 26430 /usr/bin/udpxy -S -p 4022 -a 127.0.0.1 -c 16 [root@vannew ~]# systemctl stop udpxy.service [root@vannew ~]# systemctl status udpxy.service udpxy.service - UDP-to-HTTP multicast traffic relay daemon Loaded: loaded (/lib/systemd/system/udpxy.service) Active: inactive (dead) since Fri, 17 Jun 2011 16:01:39 +0400; 2s ago Process: 26428 ExecStart=/usr/bin/udpxy $OPTIONS (code=exited, status=0/SUCCESS) Main PID: 26430 (code=exited, status=0/SUCCESS) CGroup: name=systemd:/system/udpxy.service [root@vannew ~]# systemctl start udpxy.service [root@vannew ~]# systemctl status udpxy.service udpxy.service - UDP-to-HTTP multicast traffic relay daemon Loaded: loaded (/lib/systemd/system/udpxy.service) Active: active (running) since Fri, 17 Jun 2011 16:01:48 +0400; 4s ago Process: 26539 ExecStart=/usr/bin/udpxy $OPTIONS (code=exited, status=0/SUCCESS) Main PID: 26541 (udpxy) CGroup: name=systemd:/system/udpxy.service └ 26541 /usr/bin/udpxy -S -p 4022 -a 127.0.0.1 -c 16
I don't see any reason why not to use Type=simple with -T option as always working solution (I tested both forking and simple many times).
Patch was included in upsteam in 1.0-Chipmunk-BLD20
(In reply to comment #19) > Patch was included in upsteam in 1.0-Chipmunk-BLD20 Thank you for the information. - udpxy 1.0-Chipmunk-BLD20 Spec URL: http://nucleo.fedorapeople.org/pkg-reviews/udpxy/1.0.20/udpxy.spec SRPM URL: http://nucleo.fedorapeople.org/pkg-reviews/udpxy/1.0.20/udpxy-1.0.20-1.fc15.src.rpm Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3146166 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint udpxy-1.0.20-1.fc15.i686.rpm udpxy-debuginfo-1.0.20-1.fc15.i686.rpm udpxy-1.0.20-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm udpxy-debuginfo-1.0.20-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm udpxy-1.0.20-1.fc15.src.rpm udpxy.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multicast -> Multics, simulcast udpxy.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multicast -> Multics, simulcast udpxy.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary udpxrec udpxy.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary udpxy udpxy.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multicast -> Multics, simulcast udpxy.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multicast -> Multics, simulcast udpxy.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary udpxrec udpxy.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary udpxy udpxy.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multicast -> Multics, simulcast udpxy.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multicast -> Multics, simulcast 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.
Ok maybe it's time to let the review begin... I doesn't see any blockers for this to be accepted.
If there are no other comments I think we should set "+" fedora‑review flag to let nucleo make an SCM admin request.
You can try to use for review one of review templates before set fedora‑review+ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Package_Maintainers/Review_Template
Ok thanks. Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated MUST Items: [x] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. [x] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [x] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [x] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. [x] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [x] 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. [x] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [x] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [x] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. da0a587cfc81fb4a501b07ed84237469 udpxy.1.0-Chipmunk-BLD20.tgz [x] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. [-] 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. [x] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires mock INFO: Done(Загрузки/udpxy-1.0.20-1.fc15.src.rpm) Config(default) 1 minutes 13 seconds [-] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. [-] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [-] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review [x] 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. [x] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [x] 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. [x] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. [x] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage. [x] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [-] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [-] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [-] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [-] 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. [-] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [x] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. [-] 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. [x] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [x] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. SHOULD Items: [-] 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. [?] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. INFO: Done(Загрузки/udpxy-1.0.20-1.fc15.src.rpm) Config(default) 1 minutes 13 seconds [?] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. [x] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [-] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [-] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [-] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [x] SHOULD: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. So I think there are no issues blocking it from beeing approved.
Thanks. See actions should be done to complete review http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Reviewer
Ok I think it's time to make an SCM admin request.
Thanks. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: udpxy Short Description: UDP-to-HTTP multicast traffic relay daemon Owners: nucleo Branches: f15 f16 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
udpxy-1.0.20-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/udpxy-1.0.20-1.fc15
udpxy-1.0.20-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/udpxy-1.0.20-1.fc16
udpxy-1.0.20-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 testing repository.
udpxy-1.0.20-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.
udpxy-1.0.20-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: pkgname New Branches: f19 f20 el5 el6 epel7 Owners: nucleo dfateyev InitialCC: The package is a bit outdated, it would be fine to have an ability to update it to the recent version in current branches along with adding new ones.
(In reply to Denis Fateyev from comment #35) > The package is a bit outdated, it would be fine to have an ability to update > it to the recent version in current branches along with adding new ones. See bug 1062483.
OK, missed that discussion about the update. Anyway, the package change request above still actual.
New packages need a New Package request, not a Package Change request.