6:57 a.m.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395
Bug ID: 833395
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
Severity: medium
Version: rawhide
Priority: medium
CC: notting(a)redhat.com,
package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
Summary: Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
Regression: ---
Story Points: ---
Classification: Fedora
OS: Linux
Reporter: Laurence.Field(a)cern.ch
Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Hardware: All
Mount Type: ---
Status: NEW
Component: Package Review
Product: Fedora
Spec URL: http://lfield.web.cern.ch/lfield/fedora/ginfo.spec
SRPM URL: http://lfield.web.cern.ch/lfield/fedora/ginfo-0.1.5-1.fc16.src.rpm
Description: Service Discovery Client
Fedora Account System Username: lfield
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
2:35 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395
Andrew Elwell <andrew.elwell(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |andrew.elwell(a)gmail.com
Flags| |fedora-review?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
4:14 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Elwell <andrew.elwell(a)gmail.com> ---
Hi Laurence,
Working on the package review for this - The description is far too terse. It
doesn't provide me with enough info to work out *what* I can use this package
for -- for example there's now way I'd have worked out my use case of iterating
through the information system to get hostnames could have been assisted by
this application. Can you submit an expanded description in the spec?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
4:15 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395
Andrew Elwell <andrew.elwell(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |andrew.elwell(a)gmail.com
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
8:24 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Elwell <andrew.elwell(a)gmail.com> ---
Rpmlint:
Warnings in rpmlint (below) are due to your description of how to generate the
tarball from source repo.
1) LICENCE - there's no indication in the script itself of the licence -
suggest you include the short apache header in it.
installed RPM:
$ rpm -q ginfo
ginfo-0.1.5-1.fc17.noarch
$ rpmlint ginfo
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings
SRPM:
$ rpmlint ./ginfo-0.1.5-1.fc16.src.rpm ginfo.src:11: W: macro-in-comment
%{name}
ginfo.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
ginfo.src:12: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
ginfo.src:12: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
ginfo.src:12: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
ginfo.src:12: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
ginfo.src: W: invalid-url Source0: ginfo-0.1.5.tar.gz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warning
Review mandatory items are otherwise OK but the functionality of the script
needs some checks - There's no (adjustable) timeout on the LDAP call so if the
bdii server is unavailable then you need to wait for a default (60s) timeout in
the underlying python lib:
$ time ginfo --host bdii.scotgrid.ac.uk
Error: Can't contact the LDAP server. Please check your host.
real 1m3.186s
user 0m0.056s
sys 0m0.013s
Secondly the man page includes references to
ginfo --host bdii.host.invalid
but you'd be better using bdii.example.com (RFC 2606) as:
".invalid" is intended for use in online construction of domain
names that are sure to be invalid and which it is obvious at a
glance are invalid."
-- you're trying to give an example of a VALID query not an invalid one!
Other than that, once you've updated the description it should be OK to go.
[OK] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
[OK] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
[OK] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
[OK]1 The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
[No] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
[3]
-- See 1) above -- you include the 'how to apply' part but not the licence.txt
It'd be nice to put the contents of your current LICENSE as a comment in the
start of the script and the actual apache licence txt in LICENSE.
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.[4]
[OK] The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
[OK] The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
[OK] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
[OK] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture. [7]
[N/A] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8]
[OK] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
[N/A] Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]
[OK] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
[OK] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this
fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation
of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a
blocker. [12]
[OK} 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. [13]
[OK] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)[14]
[OK] Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. [15]
[OK] Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
[OK] The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
[N/A] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition
of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to
size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [18]
[OK] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly
if it is not present. [18]
[N/A] Static libraries must be in a -static package. [19]
[N/A] Development files must be in a -devel package. [20]
[N/A] In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release} [21]
[OK] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built.[19]
[N/A] 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. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need
a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
[22]
[OK] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with
any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you
feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another
package owns, then please present that at package review time. [23]
[OK] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [24]
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
4:23 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395
--- Comment #3 from Laurence Field <Laurence.Field(a)cern.ch> ---
Spec URL: http://lfield.web.cern.ch/lfield/fedora/ginfo.spec
SRPM URL: http://lfield.web.cern.ch/lfield/fedora/ginfo-0.2.1-1.fc16.src.rpm
This version should address all the packaging comments. Upstream have been
informed about the timeout feature request.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
4:50 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Elwell <andrew.elwell(a)gmail.com> ---
New description is even terser than the last!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
9:58 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395
--- Comment #5 from Laurence Field <Laurence.Field(a)cern.ch> ---
Spec URL: http://lfield.web.cern.ch/lfield/fedora/ginfo.spec
SRPM URL: http://lfield.web.cern.ch/lfield/fedora/ginfo-0.2.1-2.fc16.src.rpm
The length of the description has been increased.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
5:16 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395
Andrew Elwell <andrew.elwell(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Elwell <andrew.elwell(a)gmail.com> ---
Looks like you didn't bump the version number to match the spec:
[aelwell@pcitgtelwell ginfo_833395]$ rpm -q ginfo
ginfo-0.2.1-2.fc17.noarch
[aelwell@pcitgtelwell ginfo_833395]$ ginfo --version
ginfo V0.2.0
Built and installed OK on Fed17/x86_64
rpmlint ./ginfo-0.2.1-2.fc16.src.rpm ginfo
ginfo.src: W: invalid-url Source0: ginfo-0.2.1.tar.gz
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
(warning about invalid Source0 URL is OK as it's a checkout from SVN tag)
Other than that, review passes OK. Items listed as not OK in the previous one
have been addressed.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
3:20 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395
Laurence Field <Laurence.Field(a)cern.ch> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #7 from Laurence Field <Laurence.Field(a)cern.ch> ---
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: ginfo
Short Description: A versatile tool for discovering Grid services
Owners: lfield
Branches: f16 f17 el5 el6
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
10:05 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395
--- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com> ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
4:10 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395
Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
4:10 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
ginfo-0.2.1-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ginfo-0.2.1-2.fc16
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
4:10 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
ginfo-0.2.1-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ginfo-0.2.1-2.el6
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
4:10 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
ginfo-0.2.1-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ginfo-0.2.1-2.fc17
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
4:10 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
ginfo-0.2.1-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ginfo-0.2.1-2.el5
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
12:58 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395
Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
ginfo-0.2.1-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
12:40 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395
Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed| |2012-08-15 13:40:28
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
ginfo-0.2.1-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
12:41 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
ginfo-0.2.1-2.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
5:52 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
ginfo-0.2.1-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
5:54 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
ginfo-0.2.1-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
4:25 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395
Steve Traylen <steve.traylen(a)cern.ch> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |steve.traylen(a)cern.ch
Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review?
--- Comment #18 from Steve Traylen <steve.traylen(a)cern.ch> ---
Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: ginfo
New Branches: epel7
Owners: stevetraylen
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
8:03 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395
Steve Traylen <steve.traylen(a)cern.ch> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|fedora-review? fedora-cvs+ |fedora-review+ fedora-cvs?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
8:20 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395
Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
8:20 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395
--- Comment #19 from Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com> ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
3552
days inactive
4386
days old
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
24 comments
1 participants
participants (1)
-
Red Hat Bugzilla