Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: gitosis - git repository hosting application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458288
Summary: Review Request: gitosis - git repository hosting application Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ivaxer@gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://stingr.net/~ivaxer/gitosis/gitosis.spec SRPM URL: http://stingr.net/~ivaxer/gitosis/gitosis-0.2-4.20080730git.fc9.src.rpm Description: Gitosis aims to make hosting git repos easier and safer. It manages multiple repositories under one user account, using SSH keys to identify users. End users do not need shell accounts on the server, they will talk to one shared account that will not let them run arbitrary commands.
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=458288
John Khvatov ivaxer@gmail.com 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=458288
--- Comment #1 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-08-08 14:10:59 EDT --- For 0.2-4:
! EVR (epoch-version-release) - Would you tell me whether this tarball is the "pre-release" or "post-release" of the formal 0.2 version?
* License - Currently I don't see any evicence that this package is licensed under GPLv2 only. Currently I regard this as licensed under GPL+ (I ignore debian/ directory)
* SourceURL - As this uses git repository, please follow https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Using_Revision_Control i.e. write as a comment how you created the tarball
* Requires - Please make it sure that all rpms needed for this rpm are correctly listed in Requires. It seems at least "python-nose python-setuptools" is needed for Requires.
* README.fedora - Please include this file as SOURCE and not create this file by using cat. Using cat changes the timestamp of this time every time you rebuild this srpm unneededly.
* %clean * rm -f README.fedora is not needed.
* scriptlets -------------------------------------------------------------- useradd -r -g gitosis -d /var/lib/gitosis -s /bin/sh \ -c "git repository hosting" gitosis -------------------------------------------------------------- - Is the directory %_localstatedir/lib/ unneeded (for %files entry)?
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=458288
--- Comment #2 from John Khvatov ivaxer@gmail.com 2008-08-13 16:15:05 EDT --- This tarball is the "post-release", which I wrote in Release tag as in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Post-Release_packa...
I have a warnings from rpmlint: $ rpmlint gitosis-0.2-5.20080730git.fc9.noarch.rpm gitosis.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/gitosis gitosis gitosis.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/gitosis gitosis gitosis.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/gitosis 0750 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
Why? I create gitosis user and homedir by the package with appropriately permissions (0750). May be switch to fedora-mgmt? Incidentally, a similar package monotone has the same warnings.
Fixed:
SPEC: http://stingr.net/~ivaxer/gitosis/gitosis.spec SRPM: http://stingr.net/~ivaxer/gitosis/gitosis-0.2-5.20080730git.fc9.src.rpm
Sorry for idle. Thanks.
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=458288
--- Comment #3 from John Khvatov ivaxer@gmail.com 2008-08-13 17:29:36 EDT --- Fixed perms /var/lib/gitosis (0755):
SPEC: http://stingr.net/~ivaxer/gitosis/gitosis.spec SRPM: http://stingr.net/~ivaxer/gitosis/gitosis-0.2-5.20080730git.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=458288
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
--- Comment #4 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-08-14 02:37:29 EDT --- Assigning.
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=458288
--- Comment #5 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-08-14 03:09:20 EDT --- Okay.
* Permission (In reply to comment #2)
I have a warnings from rpmlint: $ rpmlint gitosis-0.2-5.20080730git.fc9.noarch.rpm gitosis.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/gitosis gitosis gitosis.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/gitosis gitosis gitosis.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/gitosis 0750 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
Why? I create gitosis user and homedir by the package with appropriately permissions (0750).
- If you really want 0750 permission, not 0755, then set explicitly the permission as 0750 (by %attr) and _ignore_ the rpmlint error.
* Macros ------------------------------------------------------------ 64 %dir %attr(0755,gitosis,gitosis) /var/lib/gitosis ------------------------------------------------------------ - Please change /var to %{_localstatedir}
Please fix or modify these issue when importing this package into Fedora. Other things are okay.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This package (gitosis) is APPROVED by mtasaka ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please follow the procedure written on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join from "Install the Client Tools (Koji)". Now I am sponsoring you.
If you want to import this package into Fedora 8/9, you also have to look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UpdatesSystem/Bodhi-info-DRAFT (after once you rebuilt this package on koji Fedora rebuilding system).
If you have questions, please ask me.
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=458288
Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841 |
--- Comment #6 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-08-23 13:09:20 EDT --- Now as koji is up, would you follow "Join" wiki? (CVS request is needed)
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=458288
--- Comment #7 from John Khvatov ivaxer@gmail.com 2008-08-24 06:51:49 EDT --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: gitosis Short Description: Git repository hosting application Owners: ivaxer Branches: F-9 InitialCC:
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=458288
--- Comment #8 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2008-08-24 14:55:50 EDT --- cvs done.
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=458288
--- Comment #9 from John Khvatov ivaxer@gmail.com 2008-08-24 17:33:23 EDT --- Done. I build gitosis for f9 and submit request for push to updates via bodhi.
I inadvertently orphaned package, then revert it (in https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/gitosis). But status is "Orphaned". What must I do to change it? Thanks.
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=458288
--- Comment #10 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-08-25 00:12:07 EDT --- As package db says the owner on devel branch is still you, I don't guess I can change the status.
If it doesn't seem you can change the status, add CVS request on this bug to revert the status and set fedora-cvs flag again. Perhaps CVS admins can treat this properly.
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=458288
--- Comment #11 from John Khvatov ivaxer@gmail.com 2008-08-25 08:52:25 EDT --- Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: gitosis
I inadvertently orphaned package in devel content. The status remained "orphaned" after reversion. Is it possible to change the status to "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=458288
Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.badger@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |a.badger@gmail.com Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--- Comment #12 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.badger@gmail.com 2008-08-25 18:11:59 EDT --- The specific problem for this package has been fixed but the underlying issue has one remaining problem.
* All packages with status Orphaned and an actual owner have been changed to status "Approved" * The backend has been changed to properly set the status to "Approved" when the package is un-orphaned.
* The webUI doesn't yet update the status immediatel,y (A page refresh will show the change, though.)
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=458288
Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
--- Comment #13 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-08-27 11:39:26 EDT --- Now closing.
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=458288
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2008-09-24 20:02:25 EDT --- gitosis-0.2-5.20080730git.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=458288
--- Comment #15 from John A. Khvatov ivaxer@fedoraproject.org 2008-11-18 16:37:05 EDT --- Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: gitosis New Branches: EL-5 Owners: ivaxer slankes
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=458288
John A. Khvatov ivaxer@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review+ |fedora-review?
--- Comment #16 from John A. Khvatov ivaxer@fedoraproject.org 2008-11-18 16:40:17 EDT --- To Mamoru: I can't set fedora-cvs flag to "?" for new branch request. Why?
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=458288
Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review?, fedora-cvs+ |fedora-review+, fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #17 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-11-18 22:40:43 EDT --- For now I set fedora-cvs flag.
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=458288
Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--- Comment #18 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2008-11-18 22:53:59 EDT --- cvs done.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org