Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Csync2 is a cluster synchronization tool.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676187
Summary: Csync2 is a cluster synchronization tool. Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: asalkeld@redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Description: Csync2 is a cluster synchronization tool. It can be used to keep files on multiple hosts in a cluster in sync. Csync2 can handle complex setups with much more than just 2 hosts, handle file deletions and can detect conflicts. It is expedient for HA-clusters, HPC-clusters, COWs and server farms.
SPEC: http://asalkeld.fedorapeople.org/csync2.spec SRPM: http://asalkeld.fedorapeople.org/csync2-1.34-1.fc14.src.rpm koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2799170
Other reviews: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668243 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675947
$ rpmlint csync2 csync2.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/csync2_ssl_cert.pem csync2.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/csync2_ssl_key.pem
If we _really_ need this fixed then I'll need to patch the code to read then from their new location.
csync2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary csync2-compare
Upstream does not provide a man page for this utility
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
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=676187
--- Comment #1 from Angus Salkeld asalkeld@redhat.com 2011-02-09 22:15:07 EST --- builds on ppc: http://ppc.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=129364
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=676187
William Lima wlima@primate.com.br changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |wlima@primate.com.br
--- Comment #2 from William Lima wlima@primate.com.br 2011-02-10 08:30:42 EST --- Please fix your 'Review Summary' field.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join#Create_Your_Review_Req... http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process
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=676187
Angus Salkeld asalkeld@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Csync2 is a cluster |csync2 is a cluster |synchronization tool. |synchronization tool.
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=676187
Angus Salkeld asalkeld@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|csync2 is a cluster |Review Request: csync2 is a |synchronization tool. |cluster synchronization | |tool.
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=676187
Ian Weller ian@ianweller.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |ian@ianweller.org Blocks| |177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |ian@ianweller.org Summary|Review Request: csync2 is a |Review Request: csync2 - |cluster synchronization |Cluster sync tool |tool. | Alias| |csync2 Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Ian Weller ian@ianweller.org 2011-02-11 15:13:09 EST --- (In reply to comment #2)
Please fix your 'Review Summary' field.
Did this for you.
I'll review this package as a part of your sponsorship.
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=676187
Ian Weller ian@ianweller.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(asalkeld@redhat.c | |om)
--- Comment #4 from Ian Weller ian@ianweller.org 2011-02-11 15:45:54 EST --- Line 33: You create and install to /etc/xinetd.d. You shouldn't be creating this directory; add xinetd to your BuildRequires instead.
[ OK ] specfiles match: 5f5579ec396913a6070e57002f61d02ed407cf81 csync2.spec 5f5579ec396913a6070e57002f61d02ed407cf81 csync2.spec.1 [ OK ] source files match upstream: 59b95388d378b659d64d17f7b736068dec7bf7ed csync2-1.34.tar.gz 59b95388d378b659d64d17f7b736068dec7bf7ed csync2-1.34.tar.gz.1 [ OK ] package meets naming and versioning guidelines. [ OK ] spec is properly named, cleanly written, and uses macros consistently. [ OK ] dist tag is present. [ OK ] build root is correct. [ OK ] license field matches the actual license. [ OK ] license is open source-compatible. [ OK ] license text included in package. [ OK ] latest version is being packaged. [FAILED] BuildRequires are proper. See the above message regarding line 33. Otherwise, the build logs from Koji look solid. [ OK ] compiler flags are appropriate. [ OK ] %clean is present. [ OK ] package builds in mock. [ OK ] package installs properly. [ OK ] debuginfo package looks complete. [ ] rpmlint is silent. Obviously, yeah, the no-manual-page-for-binary warning is just a warning.
On the other hand, I feel like the PEM files would be better put somewhere in /var/lib, unless the files are meant to be user-configurable. Could you explain more about what these files are used for in the context of this application?
What seems most likely is that you'll have to either move them out of /etc, or tag them as %config(noreplace). [FAILED] final provides and requires are sane There is no reason to list openssl and sqlite2, as RPM automatically adds the appropriate library requirements. Keep xinetd in there, though. [ N/A ] %check is present and all tests pass: [ OK ] no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. [ OK ] owns the directories it creates. [ OK ] doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. [ OK ] no duplicates in %files. [ OK ] file permissions are appropriate. [FAILED] scriptlets match those on ScriptletSnippets page. NEVER change /etc/services. This is especially not OK because it's difficult to automatically remove this line after the package is uninstalled. [ OK ] code, not content. [ OK ] documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. [ OK ] %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. [ OK ] no headers. [ OK ] no pkgconfig files. [ OK ] no libtool .la droppings. [ N/A ] desktop files valid and installed 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=676187
Angus Salkeld asalkeld@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(asalkeld@redhat.c | |om) |
--- Comment #5 from Angus Salkeld asalkeld@redhat.com 2011-02-12 22:57:29 EST --- Thanks for the review, I have sorted everything except the pem files. I need to do a bit of research to how best to approach it.
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=676187
--- Comment #6 from Angus Salkeld asalkeld@redhat.com 2011-02-13 19:28:56 EST --- OK, I will remove the pem files as this is a step that needs to be done by the user (http://oss.linbit.com/csync2/paper.pdf).
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=676187
--- Comment #7 from Angus Salkeld asalkeld@redhat.com 2011-02-13 19:52:50 EST --- (In reply to comment #4)
Line 33: You create and install to /etc/xinetd.d. You shouldn't be creating this directory; add xinetd to your BuildRequires instead.
Well we need this as 2 lines up we: rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT So even if I add BuildRequires: xinetd it gets "cleaned up".
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=676187
--- Comment #8 from Angus Salkeld asalkeld@redhat.com 2011-02-13 20:00:47 EST --- updated files: http://asalkeld.fedorapeople.org/csync2-1.34-2.fc14.src.rpm http://asalkeld.fedorapeople.org/csync2.spec
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=676187
--- Comment #9 from William Lima wlima@primate.com.br 2011-02-14 11:00:15 EST --- (In reply to comment #6)
OK, I will remove the pem files as this is a step that needs to be done by the user (http://oss.linbit.com/csync2/paper.pdf).
According to http://oss.linbit.com/csync2/ site:
The csync2 releases also have a copy of the 'paper.pdf' file (and the TeX source) bundled in the csync2 source tarball.
I suggest you to include this file on %doc.
BuildRequires on openssl is also useless since you don't call "make cert". BuildRequires on xinetd looks the same. Keep the Requires only.
### make %{?_smp_mflags} all ###
This is the default target for makefiles. There is no need to call "all" target.
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=676187
--- Comment #10 from Ian Weller ian@ianweller.org 2011-02-14 11:13:09 EST --- (In reply to comment #9)
BuildRequires on xinetd looks the same. Keep the Requires only.
Agreed, sorry I had you add this when it wasn't necessary (had a slip of what the heck RPM did) :)
### make %{?_smp_mflags} all ###
This is the default target for makefiles. There is no need to call "all" target.
Not that this matters too much, but it's important to note that "all" is *not necessarily* the default target for Makefiles; it is simply the *first* target that is the default. (It just so happens that all is the first one here.)
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=676187
Ian Weller ian@ianweller.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #11 from Ian Weller ian@ianweller.org 2011-02-14 13:52:48 EST --- Just did one last look, the only issue is the BuildRequires that William mentioned, so
---------------------------------------------- This package csync2 is APPROVED by ianweller ----------------------------------------------
and we'll just go on faith that you'll fix the BuildRequires section and bump the release before you check it into the VCS.
Let's go finish that last package and get you sponsored.
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=676187
--- Comment #12 from Angus Salkeld asalkeld@redhat.com 2011-02-14 15:13:11 EST --- Thank you!
I'll sort that BuildRequires out and add the paper.pdf to doc.
-Angus
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=676187
--- Comment #13 from Angus Salkeld asalkeld@redhat.com 2011-02-14 17:11:19 EST --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: csync2 Short Description: Csync2 is a cluster synchronization tool. Owners: asalkeld Branches: f15 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=676187
Angus Salkeld asalkeld@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
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=676187
--- Comment #14 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2011-02-15 14:28:56 EST --- This package already exists in the package database. Could you elaborate on what you are asking the SCM admins to do?
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=676187
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ruben@rubenkerkhof.com
--- Comment #15 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2011-02-15 14:30:23 EST --- *** Bug 223633 has been marked as a duplicate of 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=676187
--- Comment #16 from Angus Salkeld asalkeld@redhat.com 2011-02-15 17:45:00 EST --- Well I thought this package needed packaging (it was on the package wish list and not in f14).
But I see it is in the package database - oops. It is "orphaned" - does that mean it needs a maintainer? If so I could take it over.
Jason can you add a f15 branch? How do I can take ownership of 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=676187
--- Comment #17 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2011-02-17 10:01:05 EST --- The package was simply orphaned (at least, I think it was), so all you needed to do was log into the package database and claim the package by clicking the "Take Ownership" button.
I went ahead and made you the owner and created an f15 branch for you. The package also has orphaned EPEL branches which I have not touched. You are welcome to keep them that way if you do not wish to maintain the package for EPEL.
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=676187
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
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=676187
Angus Salkeld asalkeld@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |WORKSFORME Last Closed| |2011-03-16 04:49:37
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=676187
Angus Salkeld asalkeld@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #18 from Angus Salkeld asalkeld@redhat.com 2011-09-14 19:19:32 EDT --- Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: libqb New Branches: f15 f16 Owners: asalkeld
I know f15 is in https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/csync2 but it is not in git for some reason.
Thanks Angus
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=676187
--- Comment #19 from Jon Ciesla limb@jcomserv.net 2011-09-15 09:28:25 EDT --- Should be better now.
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=676187
--- Comment #20 from Angus Salkeld asalkeld@redhat.com 2011-09-15 19:08:07 EDT --- (In reply to comment #19)
Should be better now.
Thanks, that adds f15, but what about f16?
"New Branches: f15 f16"
Thanks Angus
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=676187
Angus Salkeld asalkeld@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #21 from Angus Salkeld asalkeld@redhat.com 2011-09-15 21:17:07 EDT --- Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: libqb New Branches: f14 f16 Owners: asalkeld
Can I update this to include f14?
A user is asking for it, still a couple of months til EOL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738158
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=676187
--- Comment #22 from Jon Ciesla limb@jcomserv.net 2011-09-15 21:21:33 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
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=676187
--- Comment #23 from Jon Ciesla limb@jcomserv.net 2011-09-15 21:22:20 EDT --- f16 already existed, f14 is there now.
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=676187
--- Comment #24 from Angus Salkeld asalkeld@redhat.com 2011-09-15 22:07:07 EDT --- (In reply to comment #23)
f16 already existed, f14 is there now.
groan - I am an idiot. Sorry for wasting you time.
I have copied the package request from another package I maintain "libqb" No harm done I'll build libqb for f14/f15.
But what I am really after is (csync2):
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: csync2 New Branches: f14 f16 Owners: asalkeld
-Angus
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=676187
Angus Salkeld asalkeld@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #25 from Angus Salkeld asalkeld@redhat.com 2011-09-18 08:43:17 EDT --- Can the csync2 package be updated please?
See #24 above.
Thanks Angus
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=676187
--- Comment #26 from Jon Ciesla limb@jcomserv.net 2011-09-18 21:41:06 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org