Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: Netdisco - A web-based network management tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513307
Summary: Review Request: Netdisco - A web-based network management tool Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: walt@gouldfamily.org QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://auburn.edu/~gouldwp/netdisco/rpms/netdisco.spec SRPM URL: http://auburn.edu/~gouldwp/netdisco/rpms/netdisco-0.95-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: Netdisco is a network management application targeted at large corporate and university networks. Data is collected into a Postgres database using SNMP and presented with a clean web interface using Mason.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513307
--- Comment #1 from Walter Gould walt@gouldfamily.org 2009-07-24 17:42:07 EDT --- $ rpmlint netdisco-0.95-1.fc11.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513307
Silas Sewell silas@sewell.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |silas@sewell.ch AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |silas@sewell.ch Flag| |fedora-review?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513307
--- Comment #2 from Silas Sewell silas@sewell.ch 2009-07-25 17:16:33 EDT --- Package Review ==============
Package: netdisco
Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary RPMs on at least one supported architecture Tested on: F11/i386 [X] Rpmlint output: Source RPM: [silas@fox rpmbuild]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-11-i386/result/*.rpm netdisco.src: W: strange-permission netdisco.init 0755 netdisco.src: W: strange-permission netdisco_config 0755 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. [x] Package is not relocatable [x] Buildroot is correct master : %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) spec file: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) [x] 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: BSD [x] 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 [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL Upstream source: 24ff61ee909fcdb47eb837967dbb67be netdisco-0.95.tar.gz Build source: 24ff61ee909fcdb47eb837967dbb67be netdisco-0.95.tar.gz Upstream source: 35b656bdb8506f0b413c4abab44523e6 netdisco-mibs-0.7.tar.gz Build source: 35b656bdb8506f0b413c4abab44523e6 netdisco-mibs-0.7.tar.gz [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch [x] Architecture independent packages have: BuildArch: noarch [x] 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. %find_lang used for locales [-] %{optflags} or RPM_OPT_FLAGS are honoured [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required [x] %install starts with rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x] Package must own all directories that it creates [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files [!] Permissions on files are set properly. %defattr(-,root,root,-) is in every %files section Just change %defattr(-,root,root) to %defattr(-,root,root,-) [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [-] Included tests passed successfully [x] Package consistently uses macros [x] Package contains code, or permissable content [x] Included filenames are in UTF-8
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required [-] Header files (.h) in -devel subpackage, if present [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackage, if present [-] Static libraries (.a) in -static subpackage, if present [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [-] -debuginfo subpackage is present and looks complete [x] No pre-built binaries (.a, .so*, executable)
[-] Package contains a properly installed .desktop file if it is a GUI application [-] Follows desktop entry spec [-] Valid .desktop Name [-] Valid .desktop GenericName [-] Valid .desktop Categories [-] Valid .desktop StartupNotify [-] .desktop file installed with desktop-file-install in %install
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS === [-] Timestamps preserved with cp and install [-] Uses parallel make (%{?_smp_mflags}) [x] Latest version is packaged [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock Tested on: F11/i386 [-] Package should compile and build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures. [-] Package functions as described [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct [-] File based requires are sane [x] Changelog in allowed format
Notes: * You should change /usr/share/ to %_datadir in the %files section * Most of the explicit %attr aren't required in %files * Patches are suppose to have comments: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_... Although it might be easier just to change those patches to seds * I know nothing about the vendor mips packaged in netdisco-mips, I'm assuming you know if they're allowed to be packaged in Fedora or not.
Fix the above issues and I'll approve the package.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513307
--- Comment #3 from Walter Gould walt@gouldfamily.org 2009-07-26 17:30:24 EDT --- Ok, fixed the blocks.
* You should change /usr/share/ to %_datadir in the %files section -- DONE * Most of the explicit %attr aren't required in %files -- DONE * Patches are suppose to have comments: Although it might be easier just to change those patches to seds. -- DONE; On this one, I fixed the files w/o applying patches. * I know nothing about the vendor mips packaged in netdisco-mips, I'm assuming you know if they're allowed to be packaged in Fedora or not. -- DONE; These are MIB (Management Information Base) files that network vendors offer to the public that allow their devices (switches/routers) to be monitored. Since they are offered freely to the public, there shouldn't be a problem in including them in this package.
Below are the new spec file and src rpm.
http://auburn.edu/~gouldwp/netdisco/rpms/netdisco-0.95-2.fc11.src.rpm http://auburn.edu/~gouldwp/netdisco/rpms/netdisco.spec
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513307
Silas Sewell silas@sewell.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Silas Sewell silas@sewell.ch 2009-07-26 19:00:18 EDT --- Looks good.
Doesn't really matter for the first release, but you'll want to append to the changelog as opposed to overwriting.
Approved.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513307
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513307
--- Comment #5 from Walter Gould walt@gouldfamily.org 2009-07-27 13:01:14 EDT --- Thanks Silas, I appreciate the review.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513307
Walter Gould walt@gouldfamily.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #6 from Walter Gould walt@gouldfamily.org 2009-07-27 17:55:51 EDT --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: netdisco Short Description: A web-based network management tool Owners: gouldwp Branches: F-11 EL-5 InitialCC:
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513307
Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--- Comment #7 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2009-07-28 00:42:51 EDT --- cvs done.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513307
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-07-30 17:32:12 EDT --- netdisco-0.95-2.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/netdisco-0.95-2.fc11
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513307
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-07-31 14:05:06 EDT --- netdisco-0.95-2.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513307
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |0.95-2.fc11 Resolution| |ERRATA
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513307
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-09-18 00:57:14 EDT --- netdisco-0.95-4.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/netdisco-0.95-4.el5?_csrf_token=419f7...
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513307
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-10-08 14:02:17 EDT --- netdisco-0.95-4.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513307
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|0.95-2.fc11 |0.95-4.el5
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla