Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: pymilter - Python interface to sendmail milter API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476460
Summary: Review Request: pymilter - Python interface to sendmail milter API Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: stuart@gathman.org QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://customdesigned.users.sourceforge.net/pymilter.spec SRPM URL: http://customdesigned.users.sourceforge.net/pymilter-0.9.0-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: This is a python extension module to enable python scripts to attach to sendmail's libmilter functionality. Additional python modules provide for navigating and modifying MIME parts (adds to email package), and sending DSNs or doing CBVs.
This is the first Fedora package I am submitting myself. Other packages of mine have been submitted by jafo@tummy.com (Sean Reifschneider).
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=476460
Stuart D Gathman stuart@gathman.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841
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=476460
--- Comment #1 from manuel wolfshant wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro 2008-12-15 00:41:06 EDT --- Source0 should follow the guidelines described at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Sourceforge.net
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=476460
--- Comment #2 from Stuart D Gathman stuart@gathman.org 2008-12-15 23:28:13 EDT --- Fixed Source0
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=476460
Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp
--- Comment #3 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-02 11:19:08 EDT --- Some notes: - Please remove unneeded macros or conditions which are not related to Fedora * especially rh7 age condition is not needed * And I don't think aix4.1 part is needed.
- Also please explain why you want to introduce %name, %version or %release macro (note that when you write "Version: 0.9.0", the %version macro is automatically defined (and same for %name, %release)
- For source tarball hosted by sourceforge.net, please follow https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Sourceforge.net
- Remove "Vendor" item. This is automatically set when rebuiding your srpm on Fedora site.
- Your srpm does not build * One reason is that "BuildRequires: ed" is missing http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1029717 * The second reason is that "%_libdir/libmilter.a" (in sendmail-devel) is not compiled with -fPIC. So either - C module support for this package should be dropped - Or you should file a bug against "sendmail" to compile libmilter.a with -fPIC (I guess filing a bug is better anyway)
- "%files -f INSTALLED_FILES" in your method is not allowed on Fedora, because with this method all needed directories under python sitelib/sitearch directory are not owned correctly: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python#System_Architecture https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/UnownedDirectories
- We now recommend %defattr(-,root,root,-)
- The directory %libdir is not owned by this package (again please refer to "UnownedDirectories" wiki page)
- "%config" file should be under %_sysconfdir (/etc) and files under %_libdir should not be marked as %config.
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=476460
--- Comment #4 from Stuart D Gathman stuart@gathman.org 2009-01-07 22:47:25 EDT --- - Removed age support (Note, I still support aix4.1 and RH7.3, but can keep those off the main trunk)
- I like to put macros like %version at the top where they are easily changed. However, that is not needed in this case - so they are now removed.
- I did follow the sourceforge hosting instructions. Oh - Fedora doesn't like the sf.net shortcut. Fixed.
* added BuildRequires: ed * the whole point of this package is the C module. It builds for me on Fedora 9 (and RH5.2 and RH7.3 and AIX4.1). I guess I need to learn to use this koji thing now to see the problem for myself. I followed the koji link you provided, and it is for a mrpt package, not pymilter. However, I see that the failure is for Fedora 11, so I assume that the build failed for Fedora 11. This is almost certainly due to libmilter.a. I've had to file that bug for RH73, and Centos4 and Centos5. I guess it isn't obvious to the sendmail packagers that libmilter is very often used in dynamically loaded modules (for Perl, Python, and other scripting languages). But I can only test on F9 at the moment.
- I added %dir %{python_sitelib}/Milter and %dir %{libdir} so that directories under sitelib are owned correctly.
- Hmm, the "start.sh" file is not a config file per se. It is a glue file that it is sometimes useful for an admin to be able to modify and not have updates wipe out his changes. It really doesn't belong in etc. If it is really a problem, I will simply remove the %config tag for Fedora. Note that this package doesn't have any config files, and the start.sh glue file is for the convenience of applications that use the pymilter library. What is really needed is a python module to "run as a service" with pid file, etc.
New SRPM is: http://customdesigned.users.sourceforge.net/pymilter-0.9.0-2.fc9.src.rpm
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=476460
--- Comment #5 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-08 11:58:25 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4)
- the whole point of this package is the C module. It builds for me on Fedora
9 (and RH5.2 and RH7.3 and AIX4.1). I guess I need to learn to use this koji thing now to see the problem for myself.
I followed the koji link you provided, and it is for a mrpt package, not pymilter.
Oops, sorry. your -2 srpm fails to build due to the same reason: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1040488
However, I see that the failure is for Fedora 11, so I assume that the build failed for Fedora 11.
Also fails on F-10: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1040512
This is almost certainly due to libmilter.a. I've had to file that bug for RH73, and Centos4 and Centos5. I guess it isn't obvious to the sendmail packagers that libmilter is very often used in dynamically loaded modules (for Perl, Python, and other scripting languages). But I can only test on F9 at the moment.
So would you file a new bug against sendmain about -fPIC issue on libmilter.a (and post this bug a number you filed)?
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=476460
--- Comment #6 from Stuart D Gathman stuart@gathman.org 2009-01-08 15:46:22 EDT --- Looking at the logs for F10 and F11, it *does* build for i386. It is failing for x86_64. So apparently, only the x86_64 libmilter.a is missing the -fPIC. That makes more sense, and explains why "It Works for Me"(tm).
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=476460
--- Comment #7 from Stuart D Gathman stuart@gathman.org 2009-01-08 16:06:04 EDT --- Reported bug for sendmail component: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479325
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=476460
Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |479325
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=476460
--- Comment #8 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-09 09:57:28 EDT --- For now I want to wait for the response from sendmail maintainer.
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=476460
Itamar Reis Peixoto itamar@ispbrasil.com.br changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |itamar@ispbrasil.com.br Alias| |pymilter
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=476460
Bug 476460 depends on bug 479325, which changed state.
Bug 479325 Summary: libmilter.a missing -fPIC for x86_64 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479325
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Resolution| |DUPLICATE Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED
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=476460
--- Comment #9 from Stuart D Gathman stuart@gathman.org 2009-01-21 23:25:39 EDT --- Removed -lsmutil with patch. (Some systems need it.)
New SRPM: http://customdesigned.users.sourceforge.net/pymilter-0.9.0-3.fc9.src.rpm
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=476460
Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #10 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-23 03:20:11 EDT --- For 0.9.0-3:
* Re-definig %__python - Would you explain why you redefine %__python? (On Fedora %__python is defined as /usr/bin/python).
* Seemingly redundant version specific dependency - python 2.4 is introduced on Fedora Core 4 - sendmail 8.13.1 is already on Fedora Core 3 I think Requires: python ">= 2.4", sendmail ">= 8.13" is now just redundant.
* Macros - Use macros for some basic directories. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/RPMMacros /var should be %{_localstatedir}
* Using INSTALLED_FILES - Your way of using INSTALLED_FILES is still unsafe. It will cause unowned directories when pymilter comes to create some subdirectories under %_libdir or %python_sitearch/Milter .
Instead there is much simpler and safer way like: ------------------------------------------------------ %files %defattr(-,root,root,-) %doc README ... %{python_sitearch}/Milter/ %{libdir}/ %dir %attr(0755,mail,mail) /var/run/milter ------------------------------------------------------ ! Note For example, %{python_sitearch}/Milter/ contains the directory %{python_sitearch}/Milter/ itself and all files/directories/etc under this directory. ! By the way this package uses %python_sitearch not %python_sitelib so currently rebuild fails on x86_64, ppc64.
* No config file - Files under %_libdir (for this package start.sh) should not be marked as %config (If this file really should be marked as %config, put the file under %_sysconfdir and use symlink).
? Seemingly missing directory - It seems that %libdir/start.sh needs %{_localstatedir}/log/milter but it is uncertain which rpm owns this directory (at least yum returns currently no packages in Fedora owns this directory). Should this directory be owned by this package? Or is it expected that this directory already exists? (in such case which rpm will create this directory?)
! %changelog format - I recommend that one line is put between each %changelog entry like: ---------------------------------------------------- %changelog * Wed Jan 07 2009 Stuart Gathman stuart@bmsi.com 0.9.0-2 - Changes to meet Fedora standards
* Mon Nov 24 2008 Stuart Gathman stuart@bmsi.com 0.9.0-1 - Split pymilter into its own CVS module - Support chgfrom and addrcpt_par - Support NS records in Milter.dns
* Mon Aug 25 2008 Stuart Gathman stuart@bmsi.com 0.8.10-2 - /var/run/milter directory must be owned by mail ---------------------------------------------------- This is useful on Fedora CVS for some reason.
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=476460
--- Comment #11 from Stuart D Gathman stuart@gathman.org 2009-01-24 12:47:07 EDT --- Ok, I'm going to jettison start.sh. /var/run/milter, /var/log/milter and create a milter-base package for the python milters that use it. Is there a better way than having a package own one tiny shell script and two directories?
That will remove those objections to pymilter (and start.sh truly is cruft if you don't use it).
I have already cut support for AIX and RH73, but I *must* support EL3 - EL5 because that is where all the production milters run. (I have one more RH73 system that is being migrated to EL4 as I speak. Truly a golden version.) I could make a fedora version of the spec file - but I don't want to maintain both (not so bad for just pymilter, but if more packages are accepted...). I know! A preprocessor to convert a spec file template to fedora specific and EL specific versions! It could have features like %if, %define, oh wait...
I define python because I need to build pymilter for python versions other than the system default. For instance, on EL4, the system python is 2.3, but the production milter requires python2.4. Both python and python modules are easily built to coexist in multiple versions. (Of course, that argues for cutting start.sh again - so it's history.) Would it be acceptable if an %ifdef excludes the python redefinition for fedora?
The version dependency is only redundant if building only for Fedora. Would it be acceptable if I %ifdef away the dependency for Fedora?
Will use %{localstatedir}
start.sh and associated directories will be cut
Will reformat %changelog
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=476460
--- Comment #12 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-25 01:22:32 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11)
Ok, I'm going to jettison start.sh. /var/run/milter, /var/log/milter and create a milter-base package for the python milters that use it. Is there a better way than having a package own one tiny shell script and two directories?
That will remove those objections to pymilter (and start.sh truly is cruft if you don't use it).
- Well, are /var/run/milter and /var/log/milter directories supposed to be used also by other applications than pymilter?
On Fedora there are already some srpms named *milter*. Would you know why none of these packages own these two directories? If you are unsure, I think it is better that these two directories should be owned by pymilter.
I define python because I need to build pymilter for python versions other than the system default. For instance, on EL4, the system python is 2.3, but the production milter requires python2.4. Both python and python modules are easily built to coexist in multiple versions. (Of course, that argues for cutting start.sh again - so it's history.) Would it be acceptable if an %ifdef excludes the python redefinition for fedora?
The version dependency is only redundant if building only for Fedora. Would it be acceptable if I %ifdef away the dependency for Fedora?
- If you want to maintain pymilter also on EL-4, okay.
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=476460
--- Comment #13 from Stuart D Gathman stuart@gathman.org 2009-01-26 19:17:37 EDT ---
- Well, are /var/run/milter and /var/log/milter directories supposed to be used also by other applications than pymilter?
The /var/run/milter, /var/log/milter, /usr/lib/pymilter directories and start.sh are not used at all by pymilter. They are simply there so that some package can own them, and since all python milters use pymilter, it made sense to put them there. However, not all python milters use those directories, so maybe it doesn't make sense.
On Fedora there are already some srpms named *milter*. Would you know why none of these packages own these two directories? If you are unsure, I think it is better that these two directories should be owned by pymilter.
Milters can be written in any language - C being the most popular. Only milters written in Python use pymilter. And even those don't necessarily use the log and run directories provided.
Now I am leaning toward removing the %config flag from start.sh and leaving things the way they are otherwise.
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=476460
--- Comment #14 from Stuart D Gathman stuart@gathman.org 2009-01-26 19:21:03 EDT --- It just occurred to me that maybe /var/run/milter should be renamed to /var/run/pymilter and likewise for /var/log/milter. But since no other package has claimed them, maybe I won't (since it would involve changes to my dependent packages).
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=476460
--- Comment #15 from Stuart D Gathman stuart@gathman.org 2009-01-26 21:34:25 EDT --- Kept start.sh and dirs, but removed config flag. Removed INSTALLED_FILES Spaced changelog Two changes for RHEL controlled by RHEL flag (redefine __python and require minimum python/sendmail versions).
New SRPM: http://customdesigned.users.sourceforge.net/pymilter-0.9.0-3.fc9.src.rpm
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=476460
--- Comment #16 from Stuart D Gathman stuart@gathman.org 2009-01-26 21:35:18 EDT --- Kept start.sh and dirs, but removed config flag. Removed INSTALLED_FILES Spaced changelog Two changes for RHEL controlled by RHEL flag (redefine __python and require minimum python/sendmail versions).
New SRPM: http://customdesigned.users.sourceforge.net/pymilter-0.9.0-4.fc9.src.rpm
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=476460
--- Comment #17 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-29 12:34:33 EDT --- For 0.9.0-4
* Unused macros - It seems that %python_sitelib is not used.
* Fedora/RHEL conditional - There are some useful macros, see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag#Conditionals For example: --------------------------------------------------------- %if 0%{?el3} || 0%{?el4} %define __python python2.4 %endif ---------------------------------------------------------
* About version dependency - If you are to support both RHEL and Fedora by one spec file, then ---------------------------------------------------------- Requires: %{pythonbase} >= 2.4, sendmail >= 8.13 BuildRequires: ed, %{pythonbase}-devel >= 2.4, sendmail-devel >= 8.13 ---------------------------------------------------------- is sufficient (The reason I wrote that version dependency is redundant was that it is redundant just to support Fedora)
* python module dependency - Would you check if all needed dependencies related to python modules are included in Requires: For example, Milter/dns.py contains: ---------------------------------------------------------- 3 import DNS 4 from DNS import DNSError ---------------------------------------------------------- It seems this package should have "Requires: python-pydns". Also python-spf may be needed.
* Macros in %changelog - $ rpm -q --changelog pymilter shows: ---------------------------------------------------------- * Thu Jan 08 2009 Stuart Gathman stuart@bmsi.com 0.9.0-4 - Stop using INSTALLED_FILES to make Fedora happy - Remove config flag from start.sh glue - Own /var/log/milter - Use /var <-------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- that macros are expanded in %changelog. To prevent this, use %% (instead of %) in %changelog.
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=476460
--- Comment #18 from Stuart D Gathman stuart@gathman.org 2009-02-01 22:40:23 EDT --- The python-pydns is an optional dependency. The dns module is often handy for milters that need to lookup MX records, for callback, for instance - but is not part of the core functionality. Debian packages would have an optional dependency. In milter applications, missing optional packages result in smoothly degraded function. A user of pymilter, would get a package not found exception if they tried to use Milter/dns. I am torn, I really ought to put the simplified wrapper for pydns (Milter/dns) in pydns - but was reluctant to do so, wanting to minimize changes to pydns. But now that I am the maintainer of pydns, perhaps that is the best way. Milters could also use dnspython - a larger and more capable DNS library for python. In fact, pyspf-2.1 can use either library.
So how does Fedora handle optional packages? Just add the dependency, and who cares if a few extra K for pydns is pulled in? I have a feeling it is either that or move the Milter/dns module to pydns. However, that does not solve the larger problem of optional or alternate libraries - which can crop up in any potentially dynamically linked language, including C.
%python_sitelib - I am not clear when to use python-sitelib vs python-archlib. I am hearing however that the policy is to remove all unused macros - and resurrect them from CVS if needed.
I will fix that and the other issues, and will think about whether to remove Milter/dns or just add the dependency.
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=476460
--- Comment #19 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-02-02 09:27:00 EDT --- For optional dependency: - I don't know how debian deals with dependency, however as rpm does not have Requires(hint) or so, package maintainer must judge whether to add such optional dependency to explicit Requires or not. Fedora's default policy is to support as much functionality in the software as possible (and usually it tends to add more dependency to the software). However the actual judgment is left to the maintainer, so if you have some reason you don't want to add python-pydns to explicit Requires, I don't object against it (but please write a brief comment in pymilter spec file)
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=476460
--- Comment #20 from Stuart D Gathman stuart@gathman.org 2009-02-03 17:07:28 EDT --- While testing install on EL5 with SELinux enabled, I found that this is required:
# chcon -t textrel_shlib_t '/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/milter.so'
Should I go ahead and add that to %post processing?
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=476460
--- Comment #21 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-02-04 11:49:15 EDT --- I am not familiar with selinux, however I guess it is better that you ask Dan Walsh how to deal with this (maybe policy will be added in selinux-policy?) after this 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=476460
--- Comment #22 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-02-05 13:44:41 EDT --- I will wait for your new srpm with the issue I commented on comment 17 resolved.
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=476460
--- Comment #23 from Stuart D Gathman stuart@gathman.org 2009-02-05 21:18:31 EDT --- Used the 0%{?el4} convention. Since dns is needed for callback support, and callback are a highly useful function for milters, I decided to include the python-pydns dependency. For RHEL < 5 pydns in required instead, since python-pydns is always built for the system python. (Should we have a similar convention for python-pymilter vs pymilter?) Removed the % from %changelog. Removed the unused sitelib macro. Did not address the selinux issue. Could be a python-devel issue that is resolved in Fedora anyway. Will have to wait until the actual python milter applications are released for Fedora to test.
http://customdesigned.users.sourceforge.net/pymilter-0.9.0-5.fc9.src.rpm
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=476460
--- Comment #24 from Stuart D Gathman stuart@gathman.org 2009-02-06 00:13:19 EDT --- Incorporated a bug fix.
http://customdesigned.users.sourceforge.net/pymilter-0.9.1-1.fc9.src.rpm
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=476460
--- Comment #25 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-02-06 10:54:45 EDT --- Okay, now this package itself is good. So:
------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: Before being sponsored:
This package will be accepted with another few work. But before I accept this package, someone (I am a candidate) must sponsor you.
Once you are sponsored, you have the right to review other submitters' review requests and approve the packages formally. For this reason, the person who want to be sponsored (like you) are required to "show that you have an understanding of the process and of the packaging guidelines" as is described on : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored
Usually there are two ways to show this. A. submit other review requests with enough quality. B. Do a "pre-review" of other person's review request (at the time you are not sponsored, you cannot do a formal review)
When you have submitted a new review request or have pre-reviewed other person's review request, please write the bug number on this bug report so that I can check your comments or review request.
Fedora package collection review requests which are waiting for someone to review can be checked on my wiki page: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Mtasaka#B._Review_request_tickets (Check "No one is reviewing")
Review guidelines are described mainly on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets ------------------------------------------------------------
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=476460
Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(stuart@gathman.or | |g)
--- Comment #26 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-02-13 10:46:36 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=476460
Stuart D Gathman stuart@gathman.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(stuart@gathman.or | |g) |
--- Comment #27 from Stuart D Gathman stuart@gathman.org 2009-02-13 19:27:04 EDT --- Swamped at my paying job. Debating whether to try and submit milter/milter-spf [http://bmsi.com/python/milter.html] as my test (it would be nice to have a package that actually *uses* pymilter as part of Fedora). The problem is, I already know they don't currently meet Fedora packaging guidelines. I suppose if I "flunk" I can keep trying. I would also need to upgrade my home server to Fedora 10 to test running everything under Fedora. (Currently runs in production on EL3, EL4, EL5).
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=476460
--- Comment #28 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-02-15 01:21:18 EDT --- I guess trying pre-review is much easier.
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=476460
Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(stuart@gathman.or | |g)
--- Comment #29 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-03-01 11:00:49 EDT --- ping again?
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=476460
Stuart D Gathman stuart@gathman.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(stuart@gathman.or | |g) |
--- Comment #30 from Stuart D Gathman stuart@gathman.org 2009-03-04 12:14:59 EDT --- Taking some time now to try reviewing.
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=476460
Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(stuart@gathman.or | |g)
--- Comment #31 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-03-26 10:24:46 EDT --- ping again?
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=476460
Stuart D Gathman stuart@gathman.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(stuart@gathman.or | |g) |
--- Comment #32 from Stuart D Gathman stuart@gathman.org 2009-03-31 10:17:33 EDT --- Server at stuart@gathman.org still pinging, but thrashing under heavy load.
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=476460
--- Comment #33 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-04-04 12:28:40 EDT --- Actually no progress for more than one month.
Usually under situation the review request is closed as NOTABUG so that other person can take over the package. Would you have time for review request _now_ ? If not, would you consider to once close this bug?
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=476460
--- Comment #34 from Stuart D Gathman stuart@gathman.org 2009-04-04 14:22:27 EDT --- Yes, if someone wants to take over the package fine. I will keep the Fedora specs in CVS, and plug away at additional packages.
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=476460
Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |201449(FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution| |NOTABUG Flag|fedora-review? |
--- Comment #35 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-04-05 12:45:29 EDT --- Okay, then once close this bug. Please feel free to submit a new review request when you have some time.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla