Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: logsurfer+ - Real Time Log Monitoring and Alerting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731906
Summary: Review Request: logsurfer+ - Real Time Log Monitoring and Alerting Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: take@takekawa.tk QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: ---
Spec URL: http://www.takekawa.tk/packages/rhel5/SRPMS/logsurfer+.spec SRPM URL: http://www.takekawa.tk/packages/rhel5/SRPMS/logsurfer+-1.7-1.el5.src.rpm
Description: Logsurfer is a program for monitoring system logs in real-time, and reporting on the occurrence of events. It is similar to the well-known swatch program on which it is based, but offers a number of advanced features which swatch does not support.
Hello. This is my first package here. So I'm very happy if I find a package sponsor. Thank you for your time.
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=731906
Nathan Owe ndowens04@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
--- Comment #1 from Nathan Owe ndowens04@gmail.com 2011-08-18 22:11:53 EDT --- Setting FE-NEEDSPONSOR since you need a sponsor.
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=731906
Tomonori Takekawa take@takekawa.tk changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-package-review@redha | |t.com Component|Package Review |Package Review Version|rawhide |el5 Product|Fedora |Fedora EPEL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731906
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whiteboard| |NotReady
--- Comment #2 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu --- All URLs are dead now. Marking this as not ready for review; please clear the Whiteboard above if providing a package that can be reviewed.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731906
Tomonori Takekawa take@takekawa.tk changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whiteboard|NotReady |
--- Comment #3 from Tomonori Takekawa take@takekawa.tk --- Now it can be reviewd.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731906
--- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu --- The next question is why this is marked as an EPEL package. With very specific exceptions (such as things which simply cannot work in Fedora), all EPEL packages must be maintained in at least the development branch of Fedora and will automatically become part of the next Fedora release.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731906
--- Comment #5 from Michael Schwendt mschwendt@gmail.com --- Independent of comment 4, some issues:
* The src.rpm is from August 2011. It has not been touched since then, and apparently, many months have passed without trying to bring it into shape with the help of the https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines
* At least the first "MUST" item from the Review Guidelines (which are not just for reviewers, because every packager ought to be familiar with them) should have been processed:
| MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build | produces. The output should be posted in the review.
It finds a few issues. Hint. ;)
BuildRequires: glibc >= 2.5-12, glibc-devel >= 2.5-12
glibc-devel already requires glibc. With full version-release even.
2.5-12 is the original package from RHEL5, so even for Fedora EPEL 5, specifying >= 2.5-12 is superfluous.
Requires: glibc >= 2.5-12
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires
Hmmm, that's a surprise. :-( Nothing mandates that you would need to push many updates to this ticket, *but* there has been an 1.8 release on Sep 5th 2011, including a fix for a double-free. That would have been a great reason for an update and to demonstrate that you're willing to maintain this package.
umask 022
This is the default, isn't it?
%configure \ --with-etcdir=%{_sysconfdir} \ --prefix=%{_prefix} \ --exec-prefix=%{_exec_prefix} \ --mandir=%{_mandir}
See output of "rpm --eval %configure" to eliminate defaults.
install -m 755 src/logsurfer $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/ install -m 644 man/*.1.* $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mandir}/man1/ install -m 644 man/*.4.* $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mandir}/man4/ install -m 644 %{SOURCE1} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_sysconfdir}/logsurfer/logsurfer.conf
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps
%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/logsurfer/logsurfer.conf
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Owner...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731906
--- Comment #6 from Michael Schwendt mschwendt@gmail.com ---
%{_sysconfdir}/logsurfer/logsurfer.conf
That doesn't match the build:
gcc -c -DWARN_ROOT -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DDUMPFILE="/dev/null" \ -DCONFFILE="/etc/logsurfer.conf" -I.. -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic context.c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731906
--- Comment #7 from Michael Schwendt mschwendt@gmail.com --- Second thought ... just a brief look … if I continued with reviewing the built rpms:
$ rpmls -p logsurfer+-1.7-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm |grep man -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/man/man1/logsurfer.1.in.gz -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/man/man4/logsurfer.conf.4.in.gz
Uh? .in.gz?
$ man logsurfer man: warning: /usr/share/man/man1/logsurfer.1.in.gz: ignoring bogus filename No manual entry for logsurfer
And logsurfer.conf in section 4 instead of section 5?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731906
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(take@takekawa.tk)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731906
Tomonori Takekawa take@takekawa.tk changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Flags|needinfo?(take@takekawa.tk) | Last Closed| |2014-06-16 09:46:05
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731906
Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |panemade@gmail.com Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
--- Comment #8 from Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com --- Removing FE-NEEDSPONSOR from the closed review tickets.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla