[Bug 428368] New: Review Request: fedora-ds: Meta-package for Fedora Directory Server Suite
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=428368
Summary: Review Request: fedora-ds: Meta-package for Fedora Directory Server Suite Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rmeggins@redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: dennis@ausil.us,fedora-package- review@redhat.com,notting@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://rmeggins.fedorapeople.org/fedora-ds.spec SRPM URL: http://rmeggins.fedorapeople.org/fedora-ds-1.1.1-1.src.rpm Description: Meta-package for Fedora Directory Server Suite
Builds in mock, both f-8 i386 and x86_64.
rpmlint says E: no-binary.
This is a meta-package, the purpose of which is to simply provide Requires to pull in the other components (fedora-ds-base, fedora-ds-admin, console packages) of the Fedora Directory Server. It only contains the LICENSE file, in the %doc directory. The reason why it has an arch is so that it will pull in the correct architecture of the other packages such as fedora-ds-base which are architecture specific.
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: fedora-ds: Meta-package for Fedora Directory Server Suite Alias: fedora-ds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428368
dennis@ausil.us changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |dennis@ausil.us Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review?
------- Additional Comments From dennis@ausil.us 2008-01-12 15:53 EST ------- ill take this
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: fedora-ds: Meta-package for Fedora Directory Server Suite Alias: fedora-ds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428368
dennis@ausil.us changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
------- Additional Comments From dennis@ausil.us 2008-01-15 22:15 EST ------- looks good and is clean approved. builds in mock.
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: fedora-ds: Meta-package for Fedora Directory Server Suite Alias: fedora-ds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428368
------- Additional Comments From rmeggins@redhat.com 2008-01-16 13:47 EST ------- Updated due to rename of fedora-admin-console to fedora-ds-admin-console
SRPM: http://rmeggins.fedorapeople.org/fedora-ds-1.1.1-2.src.rpm Spec: http://rmeggins.fedorapeople.org/fedora-ds.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: fedora-ds: Meta-package for Fedora Directory Server Suite Alias: fedora-ds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428368
rmeggins@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
------- Additional Comments From rmeggins@redhat.com 2008-01-16 13:47 EST ------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: fedora-ds Short Description: Meta-package for Fedora Directory Server Suite Owners: rmeggins nkinder nhosoi Branches: F-8 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits:
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: fedora-ds: Meta-package for Fedora Directory Server Suite Alias: fedora-ds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428368
dennis@ausil.us changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
------- Additional Comments From dennis@ausil.us 2008-01-16 14:52 EST ------- CVS Done
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: fedora-ds: Meta-package for Fedora Directory Server Suite Alias: fedora-ds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428368
orion@cora.nwra.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |orion@cora.nwra.com
------- Additional Comments From orion@cora.nwra.com 2008-02-06 17:08 EST ------- Um, this should be a noarch package:
BuildArch: noarch
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: fedora-ds: Meta-package for Fedora Directory Server Suite Alias: fedora-ds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428368
------- Additional Comments From rmeggins@redhat.com 2008-02-06 17:18 EST ------- (In reply to comment #6)
Um, this should be a noarch package:
BuildArch: noarch
Unfortunately, I don't think it can be a noarch package, because most of its dependencies are arch specific packages (fedora-ds-base, fedora-ds-admin). How would that work?
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: fedora-ds: Meta-package for Fedora Directory Server Suite Alias: fedora-ds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428368
------- Additional Comments From orion@cora.nwra.com 2008-02-06 17:41 EST ------- (In reply to comment #7)
Unfortunately, I don't think it can be a noarch package, because most of its dependencies are arch specific packages (fedora-ds-base, fedora-ds-admin). How would that work?
We don't care about the architecture of dependencies.
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: fedora-ds: Meta-package for Fedora Directory Server Suite Alias: fedora-ds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428368
------- Additional Comments From rmeggins@redhat.com 2008-02-06 17:54 EST ------- (In reply to comment #8)
(In reply to comment #7)
Unfortunately, I don't think it can be a noarch package, because most of its dependencies are arch specific packages (fedora-ds-base, fedora-ds-admin). How would that work?
We don't care about the architecture of dependencies.
So if I do yum install fedora-ds
on an x86_64 system, what happens? Does it pull in fedora-ds-base.x86_64 or fedora-ds-base.i386? If the latter, and I really want (and expect since I'm running on an x86_64 system) to get fedora-ds-base.x86_64 picked up as a dependency, how does that work?
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: fedora-ds: Meta-package for Fedora Directory Server Suite Alias: fedora-ds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428368
------- Additional Comments From orion@cora.nwra.com 2008-02-06 18:03 EST ------- Well, under the current setup, you would get both, with the x86_64 binaries taking precedence. Looks like current plan is to fix yum so that you would only get the preferred architecture.
Why is fedora-ds-base multilib at the moment anyway? Is there any reason why you would want to run the 32-bit version on x86_64?
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: fedora-ds: Meta-package for Fedora Directory Server Suite Alias: fedora-ds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428368
------- Additional Comments From rmeggins@redhat.com 2008-02-06 21:48 EST ------- (In reply to comment #10)
Well, under the current setup, you would get both, with the x86_64 binaries taking precedence. Looks like current plan is to fix yum so that you would only get the preferred architecture.
Ok. I guess at that point I can then make fedora-ds noarch?
Why is fedora-ds-base multilib at the moment anyway? Is there any reason why you would want to run the 32-bit version on x86_64?
Is it multilib? What makes it multilib? I don't think there is any reason to run the 32-bit version on x86_64.
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: fedora-ds: Meta-package for Fedora Directory Server Suite Alias: fedora-ds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428368
------- Additional Comments From orion@cora.nwra.com 2008-03-27 19:01 EST ------- comment #11)
(In reply to comment #10)
Well, under the current setup, you would get both, with the x86_64 binaries taking precedence. Looks like current plan is to fix yum so that you would only get the preferred architecture.
Ok. I guess at that point I can then make fedora-ds noarch?
You could make it noarch now.
Why is fedora-ds-base multilib at the moment anyway? Is there any reason why you would want to run the 32-bit version on x86_64?
Is it multilib? What makes it multilib? I don't think there is any reason to run the 32-bit version on x86_64.
fedora-ds-base is multilib because it has a -devel sub-package. I believe you can black list it by sending a request to rel-eng@fedoraproject.org.(In reply to
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: fedora-ds: Meta-package for Fedora Directory Server Suite Alias: fedora-ds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428368
dennis@ausil.us changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE
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=428368
--- Comment #13 from Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com 2009-05-05 12:09:54 EDT --- I'd like to see, and would be willing to maintain, EL-5 branches for fedora-ds and company in EPEL. Thoughts?
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla