Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=249949
Summary: Review Request: beldi - Belug Linux Distribution Burner Product: Fedora Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.de QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,notting@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/beldi.spec SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/beldi-0.9-1.src.rpm Description: BeLDi, the Belug (Linux) Distribution Burner, is a program designed to burn distributions. BeLDi consist of a simple graphic user interface where the main screen shows the available distributions in a list. When the user selects one, a dialog will ask which version and for which architecture, the distribution has to be burned. Once the architecture and version are selected the burn procedure starts. You can watch the progress on the progression bar. All user operations can be completed with the mouse or a touchscreen. It is designed to require the less administration and knowledge as possible.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: beldi - Belug Linux Distribution Burner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=249949
redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora@christoph-wickert.de
------- Additional Comments From redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.de 2007-07-28 08:30 EST ------- I know the *.desktop file is missing, but I would like to get some support regarding this, as I never did such a thing before. Christoph, do you have the time and interest in reviewing and maybe maintaining or co-maintaining this package as mentioned at the LinuxTag?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: beldi - Belug Linux Distribution Burner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=249949
fedora@christoph-wickert.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |fedora@christoph-wickert.de Flag| |fedora-review?
------- Additional Comments From fedora@christoph-wickert.de 2007-07-28 10:04 EST ------- Yes, I do. I'll look at this tomorow. Thanks for submitting this review.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: beldi - Belug Linux Distribution Burner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=249949
------- Additional Comments From fedora@christoph-wickert.de 2007-07-31 14:26 EST ------- The desktop file is no big deal, but what troubles me is that we need write access to /var/lib/beldi [¹], so we have two possibilities: 1. make /var/lib/beldi writable for a special "beldi" group and require the user to be added to this group 2. install beldi to /usr/sbin and call it through consolehelper for normal users
Robert, what do you prefer?
[¹] Have you tested what happens when everything is downloaded? Do we still need special permissions for burning the CDs?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: beldi - Belug Linux Distribution Burner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=249949
------- Additional Comments From redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.de 2007-07-31 17:21 EST ------- Good question. I don't know what's better and I also don't know whether we need special permissions for burning the CDs. Option 1 IMHO requires an upstream modification while second could be downstream only, right? Otherwise we would have to maintain a patch for beldi or am I wrong? Second has the issue, that userhelper involves root permissions for beldi which are maybe not required and which could be a security issue?! I'll talk with Andy about it.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: beldi - Belug Linux Distribution Burner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249949
------- Additional Comments From redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.de 2007-09-19 04:23 EST ------- Christoph, Beldi changed and uses now a directory in $HOME unless configured somehow else. Can you please review the package again?
SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/beldi-0.9-2.src.rpm
Oh and burning CDs on Fedora 7 works without special permissions for me. Fedora Core 6 can't be supported by Beldi right now, because of qemu requirement. EOL of FC6 is reached in a few months as well.
Can we restart/go on with the review?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: beldi - Belug Linux Distribution Burner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249949
------- Additional Comments From fedora@christoph-wickert.de 2007-09-19 09:19 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5)
Christoph, Beldi changed and uses now a directory in $HOME unless configured somehow else.
Huh? Beldi changed? But the source is still named beldi-0.9.tar.gz. It's a bad habit to change something without increasing the version. This version is completely different from the previous one , so it should at least be called 0.9.1.
In fact I liked beldi in /var/lib. If we use userhelper multiple users could share a single beldi installation, now every user needs to download all the ISOs again, which is more than 20 GB per user!
By default beldi now uses /tmp, which is a bad idea, because - now beldi complains that it can't read files already in /tmp - it bears the risk that beldi changes files it can read/write - /tmp will be wiped out on reboot and people will have to start "beldi --update" and all the downloads again!
Even worse: One can't change the download location because of "Configuration::Save can't open file /etc/beldi_settings.xml in write mode." So we still need root privileges or beldi needs to store the configuration in ~/.beldi_settings.xml.
Oh and burning CDs on Fedora 7 works without special permissions for me.
Burning did not work for me with the previous release. There were permission issues for normal users and as root there were problems with wodim, it was probing the wrong devices (/dev/hd* instead of /dev/sd*).
With the new version I still see a lot of warnings but at least burning works.
Core 6 can't be supported by Beldi right now, because of qemu requirement.
I'm not sure if beldi should require qemu because the "test with qemu" feature doesn't work for most distributions I've tested. Ether not enough RAM or no harddisk, but all the installers fail. This is only useful for those distributions that come with an installable livecd.
This version of beldi looks so 'unfinished' to me (look at the configuration page) that I only would allow it to enter rawhide but none of the stable releases. In fact I noticed a regression: The downloader no longer seems to accept "file://" as mirror url (I used local copies of the ISOs for testing).
I'm attaching my spec, sorry I did not put it into this review before. This is how I would have packaged the previous version. Please do a diff against yours and take what you think is useful.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: beldi - Belug Linux Distribution Burner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249949
------- Additional Comments From fedora@christoph-wickert.de 2007-09-19 09:22 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=199471) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=199471&action=view) My spec for the previous release
Note: This spec is out of date for the new version.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: beldi - Belug Linux Distribution Burner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249949
fedora@christoph-wickert.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #199471|My spec for the previous |My spec for the previous description|release |release. | |Edit: The "Requires(pre)" is | |not necessary.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: beldi - Belug Linux Distribution Burner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249949
------- Additional Comments From redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.de 2007-09-19 09:36 EST ------- Okay, I've to slap upstream. Changing source is worse, but this is an upstream issue, not downstream. But Beldi should take $HOME/beldi or something per default as only one user per machine normally really uses Beldi. Independent of this, Beldi can given another parameter to use a common location for the files it uses.
Removing the qemu requirement again is nothing big. Suid is what upstream would like to avoid. Upstream prefers either separate directories or one directory which is read-writable to all users. The last of these solutions is discouraged in Fedora as I got from #fedora-devel.
It was also talked with upstream, that a copy of the config file is used in $HOME and /etc is only a fallback/default...but looks like it wasn't done in that way now.
Well...the version number 0.9 should indicate some things regarding features and stability ;-) I'll now talk with upstream first.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: beldi - Belug Linux Distribution Burner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249949
------- Additional Comments From fedora@christoph-wickert.de 2007-09-19 10:11 EST ------- (In reply to comment #8)
Okay, I've to slap upstream. Changing source is worse, but this is an upstream issue, not downstream.
Yes, it's an upstream issue, but it makes tracking changes for us (you as the maintainer) harder. :(
But Beldi should take $HOME/beldi or something per default as only one user per machine normally really uses Beldi.
And how do you want achieve this if not with userhelper?
Independent of this, Beldi can given another parameter to use a common location for the files it uses.
$HOME/beldi is a bad idea I think, because it can interfere with system-config-users (in the unlikely case someone creates a user called "beldi") /var/lib/beldi is better and follows the FHS.
If we use $HOME/beldi we _need_ to create the beldi user during %post.
Removing the qemu requirement again is nothing big.
Removing qemu from Requires: is no big deal but it leaves us with the "Test with qemu" button.
Suid is what upstream would like to avoid. Upstream prefers either separate directories or one directory which is read-writable to all users. The last of these solutions is discouraged in Fedora as I got from #fedora-devel.
I wasn't suggesting to make beldi suid or creating a world writable directory but about using userhelper like we do for revisor and other tools. To me this is the best solution, the "fedora way": It guarantees that beldi always is executed as a certain user, so that all users can share a single beldi installation.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: beldi - Belug Linux Distribution Burner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249949
------- Additional Comments From fedora@christoph-wickert.de 2007-09-20 14:18 EST ------- (In reply to comment #9)
$HOME/beldi is a bad idea I think, because it can interfere with system-config-users (in the unlikely case someone creates a user called "beldi")
Sorry, this was nonsense. $HOME/beldi is ok, I accidentally misread /home/beldi.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: beldi - Belug Linux Distribution Burner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249949
orion@cora.nwra.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 report.
Summary: Review Request: beldi - Belug Linux Distribution Burner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249949
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|devel |rawhide
------- Additional Comments From redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.de 2007-12-16 11:39 EST ------- Christoph, can you please review the package again? Andreas did several changes and below is an updated SRPM:
SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/beldi-0.9.12-1.src.rpm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: beldi - Belug Linux Distribution Burner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249949
------- Additional Comments From redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.de 2008-01-21 17:38 EST ------- Christoph, ping?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: beldi - Belug Linux Distribution Burner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249949
------- Additional Comments From fedora@christoph-wickert.de 2008-01-27 14:07 EST ------- I don't like the new behavior:
When you start for the first time it starts in fullscreen. It creates ~/beldi_settings.xml and downloads new distro config files to ~.
When you start beldi for the second time it's no longer in full screen and there are no distros available. :( The newly created beldi_settings.xml defines /home/beldi/iso as target, but you don't create a beldi usr, so (most likely) there is no /home/beldi.
Suggestions: beldi_settings.xml should be hidden target should be ~/.beldi/iso" by default distro xml files should be moved to ~/.beldi (I don't like a bunch of xml files scattered through my $HOME.
With these changes we could at least get beldi into Fedora quickly. We don't have no multi user option, but IMO we could enable this later when beldi is really ready for it. Or we could just add the necessary files for using consolehelper/pam and a README-multiuser to $doc so people who know what they are doing could enable this themselves.
The current behavior is very confusing for users. What do you think?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: beldi - Belug Linux Distribution Burner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249949
fedora@christoph-wickert.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #199471|0 |1 is obsolete| |
------- Additional Comments From fedora@christoph-wickert.de 2008-07-03 14:37 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=310949) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=310949&action=view) Updated spec for 0.9.16
Take what you like from it and then let's finish this review.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: beldi - Belug Linux Distribution Burner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249949
------- Additional Comments From redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.de 2008-07-13 13:57 EST ------- Christoph, can you please review the package again? I think, I merged all of the changes and suggestions into one updated SRPM:
SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/beldi-0.9.16-2.src.rpm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: beldi - Belug Linux Distribution Burner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249949
------- Additional Comments From fedora@christoph-wickert.de 2008-07-13 16:42 EST ------- Review for 145e2eb18b87a2dc7a12ce237c9c75c1 beldi-0.9.16-2.src.rpm:
OK - MUST: rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/beldi-* 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. OK - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines Ok - MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec OK - MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines OK - MUST: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines
FAIL - MUST: The License field in the package spec file does not match the actual license: Code is GPLv3+, but License tag is GPLv2+ FAIL - MUST: License text from source is included in %doc, but the License is out of date (GPLv2)
OK - MUST: The spec file is written in American English OK - MUST: The spec file for the package is legible OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package match the upstream source by md5 420555ec522884dcb771c98c0960a1f5 OK - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on i386
FAIL - MUST: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, but gtkglextmm-devel is only needed when building with --enable-opengl. The OpenGL interface looks really cool and works here and so I suggest to include it. What do you think? Pigment support (requires pigment-devel >= 0.3 and gstreamer-plugins-base-devel) is still experimental and does not build here, so I suggest not to enable it.
OK - MUST: The package owns all directories that it creates OK - MUST: The package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly OK - MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} OK - MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines OK - MUST: The package contains code, or permissible content OK - MUST: Files included in %doc do not affect the runtime of the application OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives OK - MUST: The package contains a GUI application and includes a %{name}.desktop file that file is properly installed with desktop-file-install OK - MUST: The packages does not own files or directories already owned by other packages OK - MUST: The package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} at the beginning of %install OK - MUST: All filenames in the package are valid UTF-8
FIX - SHOULD: Please bug upstream to include an updated copy of the license text. FIX? - SHOULD: Could you include a German translation of description and summary? FIX - SHOULD: Typo in description: less -> least, consist -> consists. IMHO the description could be simplified a little: -----> BeLDi, the Belug (Linux) Distribution Burner, is a program designed to burn distributions. It is designed to require the least administration and knowledge as possible.
BeLDi has a intuitive graphic user interface where the main screen shows the available distributions in a list. If the user selects one, he will be asked which version and architecture he wants to burn. Once the burn procedure starts a bar shows its progress. All user operations can be completed with the mouse or a touchscreen. <-----
OK - SHOULD: The package builds in mock OK - SHOULD: The package functions as described OK - SHOULD: Latest version of the application
So the only blocker is OpenGL. The license text is no real issue for me as long as you fix the license tag in the spec.
NEEDSWORK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: beldi - Belug Linux Distribution Burner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249949
------- Additional Comments From redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.de 2008-07-13 17:17 EST ------- (In reply to comment #16)
FAIL - MUST: The License field in the package spec file does not match the actual license: Code is GPLv3+, but License tag is GPLv2+ FAIL - MUST: License text from source is included in %doc, but the License is out of date (GPLv2)
Changed to GPLv3+ in the spec file, sent e-mail to upstream to correct that for the next upstream release.
FAIL - MUST: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, but gtkglextmm-devel is only needed when building with --enable-opengl. The OpenGL interface looks really cool and works here and so I suggest to include it. What do you think?
I agree with you, enabled now. Thought, that would be catched up automagically once the dependency is satified, but it looks not as it would be the case.
FIX - SHOULD: Please bug upstream to include an updated copy of the license text.
Done, see above and within your mailbox.
FIX? - SHOULD: Could you include a German translation of description and summary?
No not really, this is something for specspo package.
FIX - SHOULD: Typo in description: less -> least, consist -> consists. IMHO the description could be simplified a little:
I've taken your rewrite now, sounds better. Former description was taken from the Beldi website.
NEEDSWORK
Done, SRPM: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/beldi-0.9.16-3.src.rpm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: beldi - Belug Linux Distribution Burner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249949
fedora@christoph-wickert.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
------- Additional Comments From fedora@christoph-wickert.de 2008-07-13 18:26 EST ------- (In reply to comment #17)
(In reply to comment #16)
The OpenGL interface looks really cool and works here and so I suggest to include it. What do you think?
I agree with you, enabled now. Thought, that would be catched up automagically once the dependency is satified, but it looks not as it would be the case.
It is still experimental and has some bugs, nevertheless I think we should include it because it's not default and can do no harm. I leave the decision up to you.
Done, SRPM: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/beldi-0.9.16-3.src.rpm
OK - MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license: GPLv3+ OK - MUST: BuildRequires sane OK - SHOULD: Description updated
This program definitely has some serious bugs, but we can work on them with upstream once the package is in Fedora. From a reviewers point of view everything is fine, so this is
APPROVED
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: beldi - Belug Linux Distribution Burner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249949
------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-07-14 02:51 EST ------- One note: Please remove unneeded autotool related BuildRequires (autoconf, automake). Also, BuildRequires: cairo-devel, gtk2-devel are somewhat redundant (always required by gtkmm24-devel)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: beldi - Belug Linux Distribution Burner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249949
redhat@linuxnetz.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
------- Additional Comments From redhat@linuxnetz.de 2008-07-14 06:41 EST ------- Thanks Mamoru for pointing that out. Should be minor and I'll fix this before the initial import. Autotool is overleft from times where upstream had broken files there.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: beldi Short Description: Belug Linux Distribution Burner Owners: robert, cwickert Branches: F-8 F-9 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: beldi - Belug Linux Distribution Burner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249949
kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2008-07-14 11:57 EST ------- cvs done.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: beldi - Belug Linux Distribution Burner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249949
redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
------- Additional Comments From redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.de 2008-07-14 14:54 EST ------- Package: beldi-0.9.16-3.fc8 Tag: dist-f8-updates-candidate Status: complete Package: beldi-0.9.16-3.fc9 Tag: dist-f9-updates-candidate Status: complete Package: beldi-0.9.16-3.fc10 Tag: dist-f10 Status: complete
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: beldi - Belug Linux Distribution Burner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249949
------- Additional Comments From updates@fedoraproject.org 2008-07-14 14:55 EST ------- beldi-0.9.16-3.fc8 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: beldi - Belug Linux Distribution Burner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249949
------- Additional Comments From updates@fedoraproject.org 2008-07-14 15:21 EST ------- beldi-0.9.16-3.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: beldi - Belug Linux Distribution Burner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249949
------- Additional Comments From updates@fedoraproject.org 2008-07-15 08:17 EST ------- beldi-0.9.16-3.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 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 report.
Summary: Review Request: beldi - Belug Linux Distribution Burner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249949
updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |CLOSED Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |CURRENTRELEASE Fixed In Version| |0.9.16-3.fc8
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: beldi - Belug Linux Distribution Burner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249949
------- Additional Comments From updates@fedoraproject.org 2008-07-15 08:20 EST ------- beldi-0.9.16-3.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 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 report.
Summary: Review Request: beldi - Belug Linux Distribution Burner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249949
------- Additional Comments From updates@fedoraproject.org 2008-07-26 02:05 EST ------- beldi-0.9.16-3.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 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=249949
Christoph Wickert fedora@christoph-wickert.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #28 from Christoph Wickert fedora@christoph-wickert.de 2008-11-05 16:12:00 EDT --- Robert and I agreed to switch primary ownership.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: beldi Owners: cwickert, robert
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=249949
--- Comment #29 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2008-11-05 16:46:16 EDT --- Is there some reason you can't make this change in the packagedb yourselves? There's no CVS admin action involved here.
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=249949
--- Comment #30 from Christoph Wickert fedora@christoph-wickert.de 2008-11-05 17:28:11 EDT --- How can I do this in packagedb? I have been an owner right from the beginning and have all privileges, still packagedb lists Robert as owner, see https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/beldi
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=249949
--- Comment #31 from Robert Scheck redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.de 2008-11-05 18:00:44 EDT --- Theoretically packagedb works, in fact when I'm using it, only the flavor broken is available. Anyway solved with help of abadger1999 on #fedora-admin:
[23:35:05] < rsc> who broke packagedb? [23:35:11] < abadger1999> rsc: I did. [23:35:12] < rsc> I'm not able to release an ownership. [23:35:23] < abadger1999> rsc: Which page? [23:35:26] < rsc> abadger1999: I knew that ;) [23:35:31] < abadger1999> heh [23:35:32] < rsc> abadger1999: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/beldi [23:35:47] < rsc> cwickert shall get owner and I as co-maintainer (so just vice versa change) [23:36:35] < abadger1999> rsc: Do you get an error message? [23:36:59] < rsc> abadger1999: that would made me lucky. Just nothing happens. Even no ajax animation. [23:38:24] < abadger1999> rsc: can you try refreshing the page for me and hitting it again. [23:38:31] < rsc> of course. Hang on. [23:38:44] < rsc> Refreshed, will click now. [23:38:57] < abadger1999> If I'm lucky, you hit the page while I was restarting the servers and they lost the session information. [23:39:00] < rsc> Clicked to all three butons. [23:39:09] < rsc> *buttons [23:40:22] < rsc> abadger1999: anything nice found? [23:41:20] < abadger1999> rsc: Nope. I see the request that you put in before but not the one you're putting in now. [23:41:45] < abadger1999> Ah hah [23:41:46] < rsc> maybe the buttons itself are broken? [23:41:47] < abadger1999> There it is [23:42:13] < abadger1999> Oh wait... That's the login URL [23:42:24] < abadger1999> 1 minute ago [23:42:43] < rsc> hmpf. [23:42:57] < rsc> re-login now. [23:43:13] < rsc> clicked "released ownership" again, nothing happend [23:43:53] < abadger1999> Let me try... I'm in cvsadmin which sometimes means I can't reproduce the error but worth a shot. [23:44:47] < abadger1999> Yeah. Something's broken. [23:45:09] < abadger1999> Ah... I updated some of the javascript... since that's static it gets cached. [23:45:17] < abadger1999> Let me clear mod_cache on the proxies [23:50:34] < abadger1999> rsc: Okay, try again [23:51:26] < rsc> abadger1999: works. [23:51:28] < rsc> cwickert: take it. [23:51:39] < cwickert> rsc: mom... [23:51:41] < rsc> abadger1999: thank you. So you really broke it? ;) [23:52:36] < cwickert> abadger1999: I can't take the package from rsc, the button does nothing for me ether [23:52:52] < abadger1999> rsc: heh :-) Somewhat [23:52:52] < rsc> cwickert: haha! [23:53:13] < rsc> abadger1999: okay, now you've to switch back, that he can take it. Looks like this is maybe the old JavaScript? ;) [23:53:19] < abadger1999> cwickert: Refresh the page and try again. I needed to flush the cache on the web servers when I upgraded. [23:54:02] < abadger1999> rsc: yeah. The old javascript was in the cache. But it referenced things that are no longer in the new server. So things broke. [23:54:12] < cwickert> abadger1999: I did reload the page... [23:54:12] < abadger1999> after flushing the cache, the new javascript should be being saved. [23:54:23] < cwickert> let me restart my browser [23:54:53] < abadger1999> Hmmm... yeah if it's still broken after that, there's something fishy going on... it's being cached somewhere. [23:55:41] < cwickert> abadger1999: works now [23:55:54] < cwickert> rsc: ok, now re-add the permissions you need [23:56:05] < abadger1999> cwickert: Cool. [23:56:36] < abadger1999> rsc, cwickert: Thanks for letting me know about that. I need to add flush the cache to the TurboGears SOP. [23:57:03] < rsc> cwickert: done, you've to approve the spam flooding now.
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=249949
Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.badger@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |a.badger@gmail.com Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla