[Bug 423821] New: Review Request: nagios-plugins-rsync - Nagios plugin to monitor remote rsync servers
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/show_bug.cgi?id=423821
Summary: Review Request: nagios-plugins-rsync - Nagios plugin to monitor remote rsync servers Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jima@beer.tclug.org QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,notting@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://beer.tclug.org/fedora/nagios-plugins-rsync/nagios-plugins-rsync.spec SRPM URL: http://beer.tclug.org/fedora/nagios-plugins-rsync/nagios-plugins-rsync-1.01-... Description:
This plugin allows you to check rsync servers' availability, as well as (optionally) individual modules' availability. It also supports authentication on modules.
-- Not exactly my finest work, but necessarily so to play well with all the other plugins.
rpmlint isn't thrilled: nagios-plugins-rsync.x86_64: W: no-documentation
"Upstream" consists of a single perl script on nagiosexchange.org. No LICENSE file, but the license info is in the file, and since it's a script, that's still plaintext. So probably not a blocker, I'd think.
nagios-plugins-rsync.x86_64: E: no-binary nagios-plugins-rsync.x86_64: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nagios-plugins-rsync-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package
These three are a result of it being a perl script build as arch-specific. It's arch-specific so it can live in %{_libdir}/nagios/plugins/ with all the other Nagios plugins. Some other non-binary scripts already live there (like nagios-plugins-disk_smb), so I'm not the first jackass to do this (just the most recent). :-)
Not an awesome package, but there's some use for it in Fedora Infrastructure, so it'd be "nice" if it were in Fedora proper.
Thanks!
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: nagios-plugins-rsync - Nagios plugin to monitor remote rsync servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=423821
lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |lemenkov@gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review?
------- Additional Comments From lemenkov@gmail.com 2008-07-01 02:55 EST ------- I'll review 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: nagios-plugins-rsync - Nagios plugin to monitor remote rsync servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=423821
------- Additional Comments From lemenkov@gmail.com 2008-07-03 06:20 EST ------- Few initial remarks:
* URL changed to http://www.nagiosexchange.org/cgi-bin/page.cgi?g=Detailed%2F2094.html;d=1
* No need to create directory - install can do it. install -D -p -m 755 check_rsync $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{nagios_plugins_dir}/check_rsync
e.g. you may remove the following line:
install -d -m 755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{nagios_plugins_dir}
* Missing requires. At least:
Requires: perl(Test::Simple)
Consider applying these suggested changes and I'll review 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: nagios-plugins-rsync - Nagios plugin to monitor remote rsync servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=423821
------- Additional Comments From jima@beer.tclug.org 2008-07-03 09:30 EST ------- Thanks, Peter!
I've updated the package accordingly, and ran a test build (populating a rawhide cache took a bit), just to ensure it still works. A lot can happen in 7 months, like packaging policy changing. :-)
Spec URL: http://beer.tclug.org/fedora/nagios-plugins-rsync/nagios-plugins-rsync.spec SRPM URL: http://beer.tclug.org/fedora/nagios-plugins-rsync/nagios-plugins-rsync-1.01-...
The rpmlint output is still the same; that's sadly not an easily avoided issue.
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: nagios-plugins-rsync - Nagios plugin to monitor remote rsync servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=423821
------- Additional Comments From lemenkov@gmail.com 2008-07-03 10:04 EST ------- Some additional remark - you should add "BuildArch: noarch" to suppress some rpmlint messages. This one will be still exist:
nagios-plugins-rsync.noarch: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
IMHO it may be safely ignored.
BTW what the difference between this particular plugin and this one:
http://www.nagiosexchange.org/cgi-bin/page.cgi?g=1560.html;d=1
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: nagios-plugins-rsync - Nagios plugin to monitor remote rsync servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=423821
------- Additional Comments From jima@beer.tclug.org 2008-07-03 10:31 EST ------- If it's noarch, %{_libdir} doesn't work sanely, and it doesn't reliably end up the same place as all the other (arch-specific and noarch) Nagios plugins. The same package (using /usr/lib or /usr/lib64) will be used on 32- and 64-bit hosts, and it's going to be the wrong place on one of them. (Unless I'm completely missing something, anyway.) Pretending the package is arch-specific is a hack, but it's a hack to play nice with the rest of nagios-plugins. (Which I did elaborate on in my first comment...)
The difference between the two is that the one you cited didn't exist when I filed this review request. Of course, I'm not seeing any actual code for that one, either, so I'm not sure I can agree that it's "better" than this one (as touted by its author). The page has a dead link, and the month-old page hasn't had an update in nearly three. So I guess I can add "this one has published code" to my answer. :-)
I'll readily acknowledge that this plugin is probably sub-par quality. Unfortunately, it fulfills a niche for which there aren't really, as far as I've seen, alternatives.
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: nagios-plugins-rsync - Nagios plugin to monitor remote rsync servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=423821
------- Additional Comments From lemenkov@gmail.com 2008-07-17 07:35 EST ------- Ok, I asked in fedora-devel maillist and this seems to be a current nagios package drawback (I mean arch/noarch issue with %{_libdir}). Seems that we may safely ignore it. All we need is to supply "%define debug_package %{nil}" in spec-file (see link below)
http://peter.fedorapeople.org/nagios-plugins-rsync.spec
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: nagios-plugins-rsync - Nagios plugin to monitor remote rsync servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=423821
------- Additional Comments From lemenkov@gmail.com 2008-07-23 06:02 EST ------- Ping!
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=423821
--- Comment #8 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2008-08-20 06:06:24 EDT --- Again, ping!
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=423821
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(jima@beer.tclug.o | |rg)
--- Comment #9 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2008-09-27 13:39:03 EDT --- Ping. Jima, are you still interested in packaging this? There is only a little way to go and push this package to Fedora.
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=423821
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2008-10-08 01:37:28 EDT --- nagios-plugins-check_sip-1.2-5.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nagios-plugins-check_sip-1.2-5.fc9
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=423821
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2008-10-08 01:37:32 EDT --- nagios-plugins-check_sip-1.2-5.fc8 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nagios-plugins-check_sip-1.2-5.fc8
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=423821
--- Comment #12 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2008-10-08 01:49:51 EDT --- Oops, sorry for noise
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=423821
Jima jima@beer.tclug.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(jima@beer.tclug.o | |rg) |
--- Comment #13 from Jima jima@beer.tclug.org 2008-10-08 08:05:36 EDT --- Nah, thanks for the noise. I need to deal with this.
I've bumped this package up to 1.02, released January of this year. (Wow.) Obviously, I also included your fix, which kills one of the rpmlint errors.
Spec URL: http://beer.tclug.org/jima/fedora/nagios-plugins-rsync/nagios-plugins-rsync.... SRPM URL: http://beer.tclug.org/jima/fedora/nagios-plugins-rsync/nagios-plugins-rsync-...
This brings rpmlint's output down to:
nagios-plugins-rsync.x86_64: W: no-documentation nagios-plugins-rsync.x86_64: E: no-binary nagios-plugins-rsync.x86_64: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
(ditto on i386)
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=423821
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #14 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2008-10-09 09:10:58 EDT --- REVIEW:
MUST Items:
- rpmlint is not silent:
[petro@Sulaco SPECS]$ rpmlint ../RPMS/ppc/nagios-plugins-rsync-1.02-0.1.fc9.ppc.rpm nagios-plugins-rsync.ppc: W: no-documentation nagios-plugins-rsync.ppc: E: no-binary nagios-plugins-rsync.ppc: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings. [petro@Sulaco SPECS]$
Fortunately, these messages may be safely omitted.
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines . + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines . + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. + The source package doesn't include the text of the license(s) in its own file. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL.
[petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ md5sum check_rsync* bebe128f15e073abf414930e594a7984 check_rsync bebe128f15e073abf414930e594a7984 check_rsync.new [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture (ppc). + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. + No locales + No shared libraries + The package isn't designed to be relocatable + The package doesn't create directories. + The package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT . + The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines . + The package contains code, or permissable content. + No large documentation files + The package doesn't include anything as %doc. + No header files. + No static libraries. + No pkgconfig(.pc) files. + No library files. + No devel packages + No .la libtool archives. + Not a GUI app + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
SHOULD Items:
- SHOULD: The packager SHOULD query upstream to include license text(s) as a separate file.
This package is
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=423821
--- Comment #15 from Jima jima@beer.tclug.org 2008-10-09 09:54:05 EDT --- Pinging upstream, will hold off on importing.
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=423821
--- Comment #16 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2008-11-15 05:29:28 EDT --- Ping again, Jima! We shouldn't wait so long until upstream will deside to add LICENSE. In any case - that's not a blocker :)
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=423821
--- Comment #17 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2008-12-09 09:30:57 EDT --- Ping!
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=423821
--- Comment #18 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2009-02-02 08:44:59 EDT --- Ping! Jima, are you still interested in maintaining this?
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=423821
--- Comment #19 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2009-03-01 03:53:11 EDT --- Ping.
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=423821
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |NOTABUG AssignedTo|lemenkov@gmail.com |nobody@fedoraproject.org Flag|fedora-review+ |
--- Comment #20 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2009-03-15 03:24:55 EDT --- Seems, that initial reporter lost interest.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla