https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870615
Bug ID: 870615 QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: snmptt - An SNMP trap handler written in Perl Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: andrew@topdog.za.net Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora
Spec URL: http://topdog-software.com/oss/SRPMS/fedora/snmptt/snmptt.spec SRPM URL: http://topdog-software.com/oss/SRPMS/fedora/snmptt/snmptt-1.4-0.1.beta2.fc17... Description: SNMPTT (SNMP Trap Translator) is an SNMP trap handler written in Perl for use with the Net-SNMP / UCD-SNMP snmptrapd program. It can be used to translate trap output from snmptrapd to more descriptive and human friendly form, supports logging, invoking external programs, and has the ability to accept or reject traps based on a number of parameters. Fedora Account System Username:topdog
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870615
Andrew Colin Kissa andrew@topdog.za.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |giesen@snickers.org
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Colin Kissa andrew@topdog.za.net --- *** Bug 509965 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870615
--- Comment #2 from Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at --- I'd like to see that in EPEL as well. I'd take ownership there, if you're not interested.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870615
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Colin Kissa andrew@topdog.za.net --- I will create EPEL branches are you able to pick up the review ?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870615
Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |volker27@gmx.at Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870615
--- Comment #4 from Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at --- Please report the wrong FSF postal address upstream, if you haven't already.
defattr is no longer necessary from EPEL 5 on.
Please see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SysVInitScript for Requires of /sbin/service for the scriptlets
(You can remove the trailing slash on URL.)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870615
Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mail@fabian-affolter.ch Alias| |snmptt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870615
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Colin Kissa andrew@topdog.za.net --- Hi Volker,
The FSF address has already been reported upstream.
If i remove defattr, i get rpmlint errors see below
[andrew@build2 ~]$ rpmlint rpmbuild/SPECS/snmptt.spec rpmbuild/SPECS/snmptt.spec:120: E: files-attr-not-set rpmbuild/SPECS/snmptt.spec:121: E: files-attr-not-set rpmbuild/SPECS/snmptt.spec:122: E: files-attr-not-set rpmbuild/SPECS/snmptt.spec:123: E: files-attr-not-set rpmbuild/SPECS/snmptt.spec:124: E: files-attr-not-set rpmbuild/SPECS/snmptt.spec:125: E: files-attr-not-set rpmbuild/SPECS/snmptt.spec:126: E: files-attr-not-set rpmbuild/SPECS/snmptt.spec:127: E: files-attr-not-set rpmbuild/SPECS/snmptt.spec:128: E: files-attr-not-set rpmbuild/SPECS/snmptt.spec:130: E: files-attr-not-set rpmbuild/SPECS/snmptt.spec:131: E: files-attr-not-set rpmbuild/SPECS/snmptt.spec:132: E: files-attr-not-set 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 12 errors, 0 warnings. [andrew@build2 ~]$ cat /etc/redhat-release CentOS release 6.3 (Final)
I have added the dependencies for /sbin/service as per the packaging guidelines.
Please find the updated spec and srpm at
http://topdog-software.com/oss/SRPMS/fedora/snmptt/snmptt.spec http://topdog-software.com/oss/SRPMS/fedora/snmptt/snmptt-1.4-0.2.beta2.fc17...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870615
--- Comment #6 from Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at --- Please add "Requires(pre): shadow-utils" as of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UsersAndGroups?rd=Packaging/UsersAn...
rm the bin directory, as of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#No_inclusion_of_pre-built...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870615
--- Comment #7 from Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at --- Also, try to submit the unit file.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd#Unit_Files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870615
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Colin Kissa andrew@topdog.za.net ---
* Also, try to submit the unit file:
A unit file is already included.
Source1: %{name}.service
[andrew@build2 ~]$ rpm -qlp rpmbuild/SRPMS/snmptt-1.4-0.2.beta2.el6.src.rpm snmptt.service snmptt.spec snmptt_1.4beta2.tgz
* The bin directory:
Perl files are not considered binaries,
[andrew@build2 ~]$ file snmptt_1.4beta2/snmpttconvert snmptt_1.4beta2/snmpttconvert: a /usr/bin/perl script text executable
[andrew@build2 ~]$ file snmptt_1.4beta2/snmptt snmptt_1.4beta2/snmptt: a /usr/bin/perl script text executable
* Please add "Requires(pre): shadow-utils":
Done, updated spec file and srpm
http://topdog-software.com/oss/SRPMS/fedora/snmptt/snmptt.spec http://topdog-software.com/oss/SRPMS/fedora/snmptt/snmptt-1.4-0.3.beta2.fc17...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870615
--- Comment #9 from Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at --- You got me wrong there:
When I said "submit" I meant to submit it upstream, as suggested in the part of the guidelines I cited.
The tarball has a "bin" subdirectory including a Windows dll. Delete that in the prep section.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870615
--- Comment #10 from Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at --- install -D -p -m 0755 snmptthandler %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/snmpttconvert install -D -p -m 0755 snmptthandler %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/snmpttconvertmib
The source filenames are wrong here.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870615
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Colin Kissa andrew@topdog.za.net ---
* I have sent upstream an email with regards to fixing the fsf address.
* There is no need for me to delete the "bin" sub directory as that does not make it into the package.
[andrew@build2 ~]$ rpm -qlp /var/lib/mock/fedora-17-x86_64/result/snmptt-1.4-0.4.beta2.fc17.noarch.rpm /etc/logrotate.d/snmptt /etc/snmp/snmptt.conf /etc/snmp/snmptt.ini /usr/bin/snmpttconvert /usr/bin/snmpttconvertmib /usr/lib/systemd/system/snmptt.service /usr/sbin/snmptt /usr/sbin/snmptthandler /usr/share/doc/snmptt-1.4 /usr/share/doc/snmptt-1.4/COPYING /usr/share/doc/snmptt-1.4/ChangeLog /usr/share/doc/snmptt-1.4/README /usr/share/doc/snmptt-1.4/contrib /usr/share/doc/snmptt-1.4/contrib/README /usr/share/doc/snmptt-1.4/contrib/sendemail.sh /usr/share/doc/snmptt-1.4/docs /usr/share/doc/snmptt-1.4/docs/faqs.html /usr/share/doc/snmptt-1.4/docs/index.html /usr/share/doc/snmptt-1.4/docs/layout1.css /usr/share/doc/snmptt-1.4/docs/snmptt.html /usr/share/doc/snmptt-1.4/docs/snmpttconvert.html /usr/share/doc/snmptt-1.4/docs/snmpttconvertmib.html /usr/share/doc/snmptt-1.4/examples /usr/share/doc/snmptt-1.4/examples/sample-trap /usr/share/doc/snmptt-1.4/examples/sample-trap-daemon /usr/share/doc/snmptt-1.4/examples/sample-trap.generic /usr/share/doc/snmptt-1.4/examples/sample-trap.generic.daemon /usr/share/doc/snmptt-1.4/examples/sample-unknown-trap /usr/share/doc/snmptt-1.4/examples/sample-unknown-trap-daemon /var/log/snmptt /var/spool/snmptt
* I have fixed the incorrect source files.
* Please find the updated spec and srpm.
http://topdog-software.com/oss/SRPMS/fedora/snmptt/snmptt.spec http://topdog-software.com/oss/SRPMS/fedora/snmptt/snmptt-1.4-0.4.beta2.fc17...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870615
--- Comment #12 from Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at --- You uploaded the wrong file, that's not the SRPM.
You're right about the binaries, I interpreted the rule wrong way.
For the sake of consistency in your file, you could change
mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_unitdir} install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{_unitdir}
to
install -D -p -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{_unitdir}/%{name}.service
You can simplify the scriptlets like this:
%preun %if 0%{?fedora} >= 15 || 0%{?rhel} >= 7 if [ $1 -eq 0 ] ; then # Package removal, not upgrade /bin/systemctl --no-reload disable %{name}.service > /dev/null 2>&1 || : /bin/systemctl stop %{name}.service > /dev/null 2>&1 || : fi %else #Umständlich angeschrieben, Stil angleichen if [ $1 = 0 ] ; then /sbin/service snmptt stop >/dev/null 2>&1 /sbin/chkconfig --del snmptt fi %endif
-->
%preun if [ $1 -eq 0 ] ; then %if 0%{?fedora} >= 15 || 0%{?rhel} >= 7 # Package removal, not upgrade /bin/systemctl --no-reload disable %{name}.service > /dev/null 2>&1 || : /bin/systemctl stop %{name}.service > /dev/null 2>&1 || : %else /sbin/service snmptt stop >/dev/null 2>&1 /sbin/chkconfig --del snmptt %endif fi
If you don't want to simplify it, don't mix "-eq 0" and "= 0".
Anyway, neither is a blocker and I can't find anything else to nag about. As soon as you upload the SRPM, I can start the formal review.
Concerning the comment on top of the file: I think that's not related to packaging, but rather to the software itsself. If you're interested in that, please create a ticket upstream.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870615
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Colin Kissa andrew@topdog.za.net ---
Fixes have been implemented as requested.
http://topdog-software.com/oss/SRPMS/fedora/snmptt/snmptt.spec http://topdog-software.com/oss/SRPMS/fedora/snmptt/snmptt-1.4-0.5.beta2.fc17...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870615
Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #14 from Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at --- == APPROVED ==
There's room for the same kind of simplification in %postun.
As a sidenote: I found Debian requires the netsnmp-perl module. I don't think this is actually necessary.
Please notice the comment on the license of sendemail.sh below.
Package Review ==============
Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
Package is designed to go to EPEL 5 as well
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed
Package is designed to go to EPEL 5 as well
[-]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [-]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x]: 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 is included in %doc. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /media/speicher1/makerpm/rpmbuild/SPECS/870615-snmptt/licensecheck.txt
That's a single contributed trivial shell script we don't ship. It should probably be clarified nevertheless.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present Note: Invalid buildroot found: %{_tmppath}/%{name}_%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
The preferred form would be %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX), but the above is said to be good as well.
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required
Package is designed to go to EPEL 5 as well
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [?]: Package functions as described.
I've got one of the draft packages working. I don't expect any problems to have occured since.
[x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0 (snmptt_1.4beta2.tgz) [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: snmptt-1.4-0.5.beta2.fc16.noarch.rpm snmptt-1.4-0.5.beta2.fc16.src.rpm snmptt.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US snmptrapd -> snapdragon snmptt.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/snmpttconvert snmptt.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/snmpttconvertmib snmptt.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/sbin/snmptthandler snmptt.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/sbin/snmptt snmptt.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/snmptt-1.4/COPYING snmptt.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/spool/snmptt snmptt snmptt.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/spool/snmptt snmptt snmptt.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/log/snmptt snmptt snmptt.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/log/snmptt snmptt snmptt.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary snmpttconvert snmptt.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary snmptthandler snmptt.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary snmptt snmptt.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary snmpttconvertmib snmptt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US snmptrapd -> snapdragon 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 10 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint snmptt snmptt.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US snmptt.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/snmpttconvert snmptt.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/snmpttconvertmib snmptt.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/sbin/snmptthandler snmptt.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/sbin/snmptt snmptt.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/snmptt-1.4/COPYING
Upstream was informed
snmptt.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/spool/snmptt snmptt snmptt.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/spool/snmptt snmptt snmptt.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/log/snmptt snmptt snmptt.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/log/snmptt snmptt
On purpose
snmptt.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary snmpttconvert snmptt.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary snmptthandler snmptt.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary snmptt snmptt.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary snmpttconvertmib
Extensive documentation is available on the snmptt website.
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 8 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- snmptt-1.4-0.5.beta2.fc16.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/sh /usr/bin/perl config(snmptt) = 1.4-0.5.beta2.fc16 logrotate net-snmp perl(Config::IniFiles) perl(Cwd) perl(File::Basename) perl(File::Spec) perl(Getopt::Long) perl(POSIX) perl(Sys::Hostname) perl(Text::Balanced) perl(Text::ParseWords) perl(Time::HiRes) perl(constant) perl(strict) shadow-utils systemd-units
Provides -------- snmptt-1.4-0.5.beta2.fc16.noarch.rpm:
config(snmptt) = 1.4-0.5.beta2.fc16 snmptt = 1.4-0.5.beta2.fc16
MD5-sum check ------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/snmptt/snmptt_1.4beta2.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5405cbff92633772bc297e310f20d1e4b920309ea58420939f847ef5c32c55b4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5405cbff92633772bc297e310f20d1e4b920309ea58420939f847ef5c32c55b4
Generated by fedora-review 0.3.0 (c78e275) last change: 2012-09-24 Buildroot used: fedora-16-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 870615
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870615
Andrew Colin Kissa andrew@topdog.za.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Colin Kissa andrew@topdog.za.net --- Thanks for the review.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: snmptt Short Description: An SNMP trap handler written in Perl Owners: topdog Branches: f17 f18 el5 el6 InitialCC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870615
--- Comment #16 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870615
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870615
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- snmptt-1.4-0.6.beta2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/snmptt-1.4-0.6.beta2.fc18
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870615
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- snmptt-1.4-0.6.beta2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/snmptt-1.4-0.6.beta2.fc17
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870615
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- snmptt-1.4-0.6.beta2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/snmptt-1.4-0.6.beta2.el6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870615
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- snmptt-1.4-0.6.beta2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/snmptt-1.4-0.6.beta2.el5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870615
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870615
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- snmptt-1.4-0.6.beta2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870615
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed| |2012-11-14 13:29:34
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870615
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- snmptt-1.4-0.6.beta2.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870615
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- snmptt-1.4-0.6.beta2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla