Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: iptraf-ng
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=576591
Summary: Review Request: iptraf-ng Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: npajkovs@redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: ---
spec: http://npajkovs.fedorapeople.org/iptraf-ng.spec srpm: http://npajkovs.fedorapeople.org/iptraf-ng-1.0.2-1.fc14.src.rpm
This package is in conflict with iptraf. IPTraf has dead upstream so I've made fork of original.
Decrtipion: IPTraf-ng is a console-based network monitoring utility. IPTraf gathers data like TCP connection packet and byte counts, interface statistics and activity indicators, TCP/UDP traffic breakdowns, and LAN station packet and byte counts. IPTraf-ng features include an IP traffic monitor which shows TCP flag information, packet and byte counts, ICMP details, OSPF packet types, and oversized IP packet warnings; interface statistics showing IP, TCP, UDP, ICMP, non-IP and other IP packet counts, IP checksum errors, interface activity and packet size counts; a TCP and UDP service monitor showing counts of incoming and outgoing packets for common TCP and UDP application ports, a LAN statistics module that discovers active hosts and displays statistics about their activity; TCP, UDP and other protocol display filters so you can view just the traffic you want; logging; support for Ethernet, FDDI, ISDN, SLIP, PPP, and loopback interfaces; and utilization of the built-in raw socket interface of the Linux kernel, so it can be used on a wide variety of supported network cards.
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=576591
Nikola Pajkovsky npajkovs@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review?
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=576591
Terje Røsten terjeros@phys.ntnu.no changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |terjeros@phys.ntnu.no
--- Comment #1 from Terje Røsten terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2010-03-24 17:52:32 EDT --- Okay, you has of course informed upstream IPTraf about the fork?
Comments on the spec:
%configure --enable-shared=no --enable-static=yes
Why? Fedora tend to do the reverse.
rm -rf Documentation/.xvpics
If your are upstream maintainer this could be remove in the tarball?
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/logrotate.d/ cp %{SOURCE1} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/logrotate.d/iptraf
Change to install -D -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/logrotate.d/iptraf
%attr(755,root,root) %{_prefix}/bin/*
Remove %attr and, use bindir macro and list explicit.
%{_mandir}/*/*
Not so general please.
%dir %attr(644,root,root) %config(noreplace) /etc/logrotate.d/iptraf
Drop %attr, %dir seems wrong.
- Initialization build
I leave that to a native speaker.
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=576591
--- Comment #2 from Nikola Pajkovsky npajkovs@redhat.com 2010-04-05 11:09:39 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1)
Okay, you has of course informed upstream IPTraf about the fork?
Comments on the spec:
%configure --enable-shared=no --enable-static=yes
Why? Fedora tend to do the reverse.
I know. I have it this issue in my TODO. Originaly iptraf is built with "support" library and it has never been shipped. It's used as helper to build gui in console and it is linked statically. This option say to autotools to not generate *.so files.
rm -rf Documentation/.xvpics
If your are upstream maintainer this could be remove in the tarball?
Yes it is done in git repo and it will be removed with next release.(I've made note for myself in spec)
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/logrotate.d/ cp %{SOURCE1} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/logrotate.d/iptraf
Change to install -D -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/logrotate.d/iptraf
Fixed.
%attr(755,root,root) %{_prefix}/bin/*
Remove %attr and, use bindir macro and list explicit.
%{_mandir}/*/*
Not so general please.
Fixed.
%dir %attr(644,root,root) %config(noreplace) /etc/logrotate.d/iptraf
Drop %attr, %dir seems wrong.
Fixed.
- Initialization build
I leave that to a native speaker.
I don't get it.
New spec and srpm: spec: http://npajkovs.fedorapeople.org/iptraf-ng.spec srpm: http://npajkovs.fedorapeople.org/iptraf-ng-1.0.2-2.fc14.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=576591
Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |
--- Comment #3 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-04-05 11:43:06 EDT --- (fedora-review flag must not be set by the submitter but must be by the formal reviewer. Once unsetting)
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=576591
--- Comment #4 from Terje Røsten terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2010-04-06 14:39:55 EDT --- Thanks, good progress, some more comments.
Uou seem to be fan of %attr in %files, in general we only use that if something is special or uncommon, in your case I see no such things. Set bits correct in %files and let the %files section be simple.
I would prefer that you changed:
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/logrotate.d/ cp %{SOURCE1} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/logrotate.d/iptraf
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/var/lock/iptraf mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/var/log/iptraf mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/var/lib/iptraf
to:
install -D -p -m 0644 %{SOURCE1} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_sysconfdir}/logrotate.d/iptraf-ng
# reduce to one line, preserve timestamps, correct perms. use proper macro and change to iptraf-ng (the proper name)
and
install -d -m 0755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_localstatedir}/{lock,log,lib}/iptraf-ng
# same thing here.
Now with %install fixed, these lines in %files:
%attr(755,root,root) %{_prefix}/bin/* %{_mandir}/*/* %dir %attr(755,root,root) /var/lock/iptraf %dir %attr(755,root,root) /var/log/iptraf %dir %attr(755,root,root) /var/lib/iptraf %dir %attr(644,root,root) %config(noreplace) /etc/logrotate.d/iptraf
should be
%{_bindir}/iptraf-ng %{_bindir}/rawtime %{_bindir}/rvnamed %{_mandir}/man8/iptraf.8* %{_mandir}/man8/rvnamed.8* %{_localstatedir}/lock/iptraf-ng %{_localstatedir}/log/iptraf-ng %{_localstatedir}/lib/iptraf-ng %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/logrotate.d/iptraf-ng
BTW: the rawtime name is a bit on the generic side, a man page about the tool would not hurt.
You should really decide on iptraf versus iptraf-ng.
Is this iptraf og iptraf-ng?
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=576591
--- Comment #5 from Nikola Pajkovsky npajkovs@redhat.com 2010-04-08 04:48:31 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4)
Thanks, good progress, some more comments.
Uou seem to be fan of %attr in %files, in general we only use that if
:D I'm definitely not a fan of writing spec files and mainly rewriting spec.
something is special or uncommon, in your case I see no such things. Set bits correct in %files and let the %files section be simple.
I would prefer that you changed:
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/logrotate.d/ cp %{SOURCE1} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/logrotate.d/iptraf
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/var/lock/iptraf mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/var/log/iptraf mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/var/lib/iptraf
to:
install -D -p -m 0644 %{SOURCE1} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_sysconfdir}/logrotate.d/iptraf-ng
Fixed.
# reduce to one line, preserve timestamps, correct perms. use proper macro and change to iptraf-ng (the proper name)
and
install -d -m 0755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_localstatedir}/{lock,log,lib}/iptraf-ng
Fixed. I didn't know I can you {brum,brum}
# same thing here.
Now with %install fixed, these lines in %files:
%attr(755,root,root) %{_prefix}/bin/* %{_mandir}/*/* %dir %attr(755,root,root) /var/lock/iptraf %dir %attr(755,root,root) /var/log/iptraf %dir %attr(755,root,root) /var/lib/iptraf %dir %attr(644,root,root) %config(noreplace) /etc/logrotate.d/iptraf
should be
%{_bindir}/iptraf-ng %{_bindir}/rawtime %{_bindir}/rvnamed %{_mandir}/man8/iptraf.8* %{_mandir}/man8/rvnamed.8* %{_localstatedir}/lock/iptraf-ng %{_localstatedir}/log/iptraf-ng %{_localstatedir}/lib/iptraf-ng %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/logrotate.d/iptraf-ng
Fixed.
BTW: the rawtime name is a bit on the generic side, a man page about the tool would not hurt.
You should really decide on iptraf versus iptraf-ng.
Is this iptraf og iptraf-ng?
This is iptraf-ng and I left the original naming. There is some *wild* header called dirs.h. It works as config.h in autotools and in my TODO is get rid of this machinery and use config.h. I'm mostly working on ABRT so I don't have much time, but I feel in my bones that this weekend this should be done :)
I hope this is a last round :)
spec: http://npajkovs.fedorapeople.org/iptraf-ng.spec srpm: http://npajkovs.fedorapeople.org/iptraf-ng-1.0.2-3.fc14.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=576591
--- Comment #6 from Chen Lei supercyper1@gmail.com 2010-06-24 13:19:07 EDT --- If the original iptraf upstream is dead, then you can use Obsoletes/Provides instead of Conflicts
See packaging guideline
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=576591
--- Comment #7 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2010-11-22 23:20:49 EST --- Doesn't look like anything has happened with this ticket in quite some time.
A few random comments:
The previous comment is correct; it is not appropriate to conflict with iptraf. Instead, you should have a proper Obsoletes:/Provides: pair. The guideline that was being referred to is http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Renaming.2Freplacin...
The original iptraf spec looks a bit cleaner than this one; for some reason those terrible macros like "%{__rm}" snuck in. If you for some reason like the extra typing and decreased readability and really want to use them, you need to be consistent about it and use them everywhere (which means using "%{__install}" and not using plain "rm"). Or you could just drop them entirely. (Honestly I dislike them enough that I simply don't review packages that use them.)
I see that development is continuing; what's the current version?
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=576591
--- Comment #8 from Nikola Pajkovsky npajkovs@redhat.com 2010-11-23 04:46:39 EST --- I'm working on huge clean up...when I release a new version, I will put here a new version for an inspection.
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=576591
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status Whiteboard| |NotReady
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=576591
--- Comment #9 from Nikola Pajkovsky npajkovs@redhat.com 2011-01-25 08:12:42 EST --- http://npajkovs.fedorapeople.org/iptraf-ng.spec http://npajkovs.fedorapeople.org/iptraf-ng-1.0.3.52.gdaa1-1.fc15.src.rpm
got rid of %{__boohoo}, proper Obsoletes/Provides pair. There is a lot of more under hood.
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=576591
--- Comment #10 from Terje Røsten terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2011-01-26 04:53:34 EST --- Thanks, this is starting to look good.
Some warnings from rpmlint:
W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 12)
- convert tabs in Obsoletes: and Provides: to spaces.
W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes iptraf W self-obsoletion iptraf obsoletes iptraf = 1.0.3.52.gdaa1-1.fc14
- these seems dangerous,
W: invalid-url Source0: https://fedorahosted.org/releases/i/p/iptraf-ng/iptraf-ng-1.0.3.52.gdaa1.tar... HTTP Error 404: Not Found
- can't find the tarball on the website, would also be nice to remove the gdaa1 postfix.
W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0.2-3 ['1.0.3.52.gdaa1-1.fc14', '1.0.3.52.gdaa1-1']
- easy to fix
W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man8/iptraf-ng.8.gz 27: warning: macro `Biptraf' not defined
Fix these and I will do the formal review.
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=576591
--- Comment #11 from Nikola Pajkovsky npajkovs@redhat.com 2011-01-26 05:30:13 EST --- http://npajkovs.fedorapeople.org/iptraf-ng.spec http://npajkovs.fedorapeople.org/iptraf-ng-1.0.3.55.gae6e.dirty-1.fc15.src.r...
(In reply to comment #10)
Thanks, this is starting to look good.
Some warnings from rpmlint:
W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 12)
- convert tabs in Obsoletes: and Provides: to spaces.
W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes iptraf W self-obsoletion iptraf obsoletes iptraf = 1.0.3.52.gdaa1-1.fc14
- these seems dangerous,
fixed
W: invalid-url Source0: https://fedorahosted.org/releases/i/p/iptraf-ng/iptraf-ng-1.0.3.52.gdaa1.tar... HTTP Error 404: Not Found
- can't find the tarball on the website,
would also be nice to remove the gdaa1 postfix.
the naming convention is A.B.C.X.sha1.dirty-%{release}
where,
A.B.C - is version of iptraf-ng X - is how many commits are iptraf ahead of A.B.C version sha1 - taken from git description optional dirty - show only if I have dirty working directory (Right now I middle of some work)
This is a snapshot taken from git. For table release it will be looking as iptraf-ng.A.B.C-%{release}
W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0.2-3 ['1.0.3.52.gdaa1-1.fc14', '1.0.3.52.gdaa1-1']
- easy to fix
W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man8/iptraf-ng.8.gz 27: warning: macro `Biptraf' not defined
Fix these and I will do the formal review.
This won't be fixed till I release a new stable version or I put iptraf-ng into rawhide.
Thank you for taking time to look at 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=576591
--- Comment #12 from Terje Røsten terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2011-01-26 06:04:21 EST ---
Version: 1.0.3.55.gae6e.dirty
[snip]
Obsoletes: iptraf <= 3.0.1-10 Provides: iptraf = %{version}-%{release}
This will not work, with %{version} < 3.0.1-10 you will obsolete your self. Your need to provide iptraf > 3.0.1-10.
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=576591
--- Comment #13 from Nikola Pajkovsky npajkovs@redhat.com 2011-01-26 07:36:07 EST --- I'm a little puzzled here. How can I obsolete by my self if the package name is iptraf-ng not iptraf?
or should it be like that?
Version: 1.0.3.55.gae6e.dirty
[snip]
Obsoletes: iptraf <= 3.0.1-10 Provides: iptraf-ng = %{version}
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=576591
--- Comment #14 from Terje Røsten terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2011-01-26 08:01:52 EST --- No, don't help.
This line
Provides: iptraf-ng = %{version}
is implicit any way.
This line
Obsoletes: iptraf <= 3.0.1-10
is correct.
This means when iptraf-ng is installed iptraf is removed, I guess you want that to happen
Now if some installed package A have a dep on iptraf, rpm/yum will refuse to install iptraf-ng as iptraf is removed with nothing to satisfy the dep package A has on iptraf. So we solve that by adding
Provides: iptraf = %{version}-%{release}
in iptraf-ng.spec, letting iptraf-ng satisfy the dep pacakge A has on iptraf.
However, we have just obsoleted iptraf <= 3.0.1-10, when %{version}-%{release} < 3.0.1-10 the package obsoletes itself, not good.
I see two options:
- adjust %{version} to be > 3.0.1
or use this line
Provides: iptraf = 3.0.1-11
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=576591
--- Comment #15 from Nikola Pajkovsky npajkovs@redhat.com 2011-01-26 08:39:49 EST --- Thank you, second solution doesn't work :-/ I've put this into spec file
Obsoletes: iptraf < 3.1 Provides: iptraf = 3.1
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=576591
--- Comment #16 from Nikola Pajkovsky npajkovs@redhat.com 2011-01-27 07:50:11 EST --- what do you think? Is it ok with you?
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=576591
--- Comment #17 from Terje Røsten terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2011-01-27 08:50:35 EST --- Yes, seems good, thanks.
Will try to find free time to do the formal review soon.
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=576591
Terje Røsten terjeros@phys.ntnu.no changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |terjeros@phys.ntnu.no Status Whiteboard|NotReady | Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #18 from Terje Røsten terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2011-01-28 13:39:42 EST --- Formal review:
ok - package meets naming and versioning guidelines ! - source files match upstream: no tarball available ok - specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently ok - dist tag is present ok - build root is correct ! - license field matches the actual license most parts is GPLv2+, however some files has unclear license: bar.c cidr.c getpath.c ipcsum.c mode.c tr.c most *.h files are missing license info. You must contact the author (Gerard Paul Java) about these problems. ok - license is open source-compatible ok - license text included in package ok - latest version is being packaged ok - BuildRequires are proper and compiler flags are appropriate koji is happy, however there are some warning you might want to look at: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=2748127&name=build.log ok - %clean is present ok - package builds in koji http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2748127 ok - package installs properly, even works ok - debuginfo package looks complete ! rpmlint is silent invalid-url Source0: https://fedorahosted.org/releases/i/p/iptraf-ng/iptraf-ng-1.0.3.55.gae6e.dir... HTTP Error 404: Not Found incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0.2-3 ['1.0.3.55.gae6e.dirty-1.fc13', '1.0.3.55.gae6e.dirty-1'] ok - final provides and requires are sane 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 ok- documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary ok -%docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package
Summary:
o include the obsolete/provides in comment #15. o upload a tarball o fix changelog o fix the license issue
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=576591
--- Comment #19 from Terje Røsten terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2011-02-28 07:46:00 EST --- 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=576591
--- Comment #20 from Nikola Pajkovsky npajkovs@redhat.com 2011-02-28 07:53:28 EST --- yes?
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=576591
--- Comment #21 from Terje Røsten terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2011-02-28 07:57:03 EST ---
I just wonder about any progress with the issues in comment #18.
You still want the package included in Fedora?
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=576591
--- Comment #22 from Nikola Pajkovsky npajkovs@redhat.com 2011-02-28 08:40:55 EST --- Sure I want iptraf-ng in Fedora ;)
o include the obsolete/provides in comment #15. - fixed in commit 7abf0de222f3a
o upload a tarball o fix changelog - I will fix it when git will be ready and iptraf-ng-1.1.0 ready to deploy.
o fix the license issue bar.c - just print "Computing" on status bar. I have a plan to create an universal function for bar operation. So this module will be removed. cidr.c getpath.c - module will be removed and I will provide an option in configure ipcsum.c - if the ping is under GPLv2+ than even this module must be, because in_cksum() was taken from ping. mode.c - omg!!! I will remove it completely and provide only one simple macro tr.c - tricky one. The code was taken from Linux kernel in 2002.
"You must contact the author (Gerard Paul Java) about these problems."
I'm not sure if this will be doable. Upstream is dead and he didn't response. I will try it 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=576591
--- Comment #23 from Terje Røsten terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2011-02-28 09:20:57 EST --- Thanks for the feedback, please update the ticket when you have 1.1.0 ready.
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=576591
--- Comment #24 from Terje Røsten terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2011-10-17 09:04:41 EDT --- Hi again, what is current status?
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=576591
--- Comment #25 from Nikola Pajkovsky npajkovs@redhat.com 2011-12-20 10:36:26 EST --- new status of iptraf-ng
ipcsum.c - rewritten mode.c - removed bar.c - licence changed cidr.c - licence changed getpath.c - licence changed tr.c - licence changed
build is in koji http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3595694
http://npajkovs.fedorapeople.org/iptraf-ng.spec http://npajkovs.fedorapeople.org/iptraf-ng-1.1.0.rc0-1.el6.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=576591
--- Comment #26 from Terje Røsten terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2011-12-20 15:25:02 EST --- We are soon there, some small things from rpmlint:
W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.1.0-rc0-1 ['1.1.0.rc0-1.fc14', '1.1.0.rc0-1'] E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/iptraf-ng-1.1.0.rc0/LICENSE W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/iptraf-ng-1.1.0.rc0/INSTALL W: non-ghost-in-var-lock /var/lock/iptraf-ng
Fix these and we should be all good. At least fix the error about address.
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=576591
--- Comment #27 from Nikola Pajkovsky npajkovs@redhat.com 2012-01-05 04:04:00 EST --- W: non-ghost-in-var-lock /var/lock/iptraf-ng
I don't have any idea, how did you get above message.
All, except incoherent-version-in-changelog, warnings and error are fixed. I'm auto generating spec version of iptraf-ng from current git version, and will be off almost every time, except the time of tagging of new version in git.
http://npajkovs.fedorapeople.org/iptraf-ng-1.1.0.rc0.1.gfe0c-2.el6.src.rpm
please pick spec file from srpm
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=576591
Terje Røsten terjeros@phys.ntnu.no changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #28 from Terje Røsten terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2012-01-05 14:56:30 EST --- Thanks,
package iptrag-ng 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=576591
--- Comment #29 from Nikola Pajkovsky npajkovs@redhat.com 2012-01-05 21:29:26 EST --- juuuhuuu! many thanks for review
please create someone git repo for f15 till the 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=576591
--- Comment #30 from Terje Røsten terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2012-01-06 10:42:47 EST ---
Please create a proper SCM request:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_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=576591
Nikola Pajkovsky npajkovs@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=576591
--- Comment #31 from Nikola Pajkovsky npajkovs@redhat.com 2012-01-10 07:39:09 EST --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: iptraf-ng Short Description: A console-based network monitoring utility Owners: npajkovs Branches: f15 f16 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=576591
--- Comment #32 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com 2012-01-10 08:01:01 EST --- 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=576591
--- Comment #33 from Nikola Pajkovsky npajkovs@redhat.com 2012-01-24 09:34:47 EST --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: iptraf-ng Short Description: A console-based network monitoring utility Owners: npajkovs Branches: el5 el6 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=576591
--- Comment #34 from Terje Røsten terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2012-02-01 17:07:13 EST --- Please close ticket if package is imported.
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=576591
Nikola Pajkovsky npajkovs@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed| |2012-02-02 04:13:13
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=576591
--- Comment #35 from Juha Tuomala tuju@iki.fi 2012-02-02 05:07:57 EST --- EPEL builds would be highly appreciated.
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=576591
--- Comment #36 from Nikola Pajkovsky npajkovs@redhat.com 2012-02-02 05:25:38 EST --- I'm going to create another ticket for rel-eng
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=576591
Nikola Pajkovsky npajkovs@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|CURRENTRELEASE | Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? Keywords| |Reopened
--- Comment #37 from Nikola Pajkovsky npajkovs@redhat.com 2012-02-07 01:49:16 EST --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: iptraf-ng Short Description: A console-based network monitoring utility Owners: npajkovs Branches: el5 el6 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=576591
--- Comment #38 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com 2012-02-07 08:35:15 EST --- Already exists, to create new branches submit a Package Change request.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests
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=576591
Nikola Pajkovsky npajkovs@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed|2012-02-02 04:13:13 |2012-02-07 11:54:23
--- Comment #39 from Nikola Pajkovsky npajkovs@redhat.com 2012-02-07 11:54:23 EST --- Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: iptraf-ng New Branches: el5 el6 Owners: npajkovs
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=576591
Nikola Pajkovsky npajkovs@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=576591
--- Comment #40 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com 2012-02-08 08:10:37 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org