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/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139
Summary: Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: bugzilla-sink@leemhuis.info ReportedBy: Jochen@herr-schmitt.de QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/luma/luma.spec SRPM URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/luma/luma-2.3.0-1.src.rpm
Luma - a graphical tool for accessing and managing LDAP server. It is written in Python, using PyQt and python-ldap. Plugin-support is included and useful widgets with LDAP- functionality for easy creation of plugins are delivered.
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: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139
------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta@iki.fi 2006-07-25 16:34 EST ------- For reference, here's my local package of this: http://cachalot.mine.nu/5/SRPMS/luma-2.3-0.1.src.rpm
The above contains some improvements over your package but it is pretty much untested and known to be not quite complete, so approach with care. And I don't have use for luma at the moment, so I'm not doing a full review. But a quick peek into the specfile differences tells me that:
- Possibly missing Requires on python-ldap, PyQt, maybe python-smbpasswd
- Odd placement of icon and icon caches not updated (does the menu entry actually show an icon?), see my specfile for ideas for a more thorough implementation
- Could %lang'ify translations, see my specfile
- Specfile comment says "Desktop entry for nvidia-settings"
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: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139
------- Additional Comments From Jochen@herr-schmitt.de 2006-07-26 11:33 EST ------- Next release:
Spec URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/luma/luma.spec SRPM URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/luma/luma-2.3.0-2.src.rpm
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: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139
jwilson@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jwilson@redhat.com
------- Additional Comments From jwilson@redhat.com 2006-07-26 13:09 EST ------- Package build goes bonk on x86_64, install.py puts everything in /usr/lib/luma, while the spec is looking for /usr/lib64/luma.
Also, why the %{ver} stuff? The upstream tarball is versioned simply 2.3, why are you turning that into 2.3.0?
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: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139
------- Additional Comments From Jochen@herr-schmitt.de 2006-07-26 13:28 EST ------- If you visit http://luma.sf.net you will see, that there was versions like luma-2.2.1.
So the version 2.3 is the same as 2.3.0.
Therefore I use a three qualified versioning schema to be sure that the updating will worked in the future.
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: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139
------- Additional Comments From jwilson@redhat.com 2006-07-26 13:41 EST ------- Version 2.3.1 will already be rpm-newer than 2.3, there is no need to make it into 2.3.0. Altering the upstream versioning is frowned upon, and altogether unnecessary in this case.
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: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139
------- Additional Comments From Jochen@herr-schmitt.de 2006-07-26 14:48 EST ------- Next release:
Spec URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/luma/luma.spec SRPM URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/luma/luma-2.3-3.src.rpm
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: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139
------- Additional Comments From jwilson@redhat.com 2006-08-08 10:56 EST ------- Sorry for the delay, been swamped with work... Finally poked at the -3 version a bit, and got the following out of rpmlint:
$ rpmlint -i /build/RPMS/noarch/luma-2.3-3.fc5.noarch.rpm E: luma only-non-binary-in-usr-lib There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share.
This would appear to require some hacking of install.py, and I'm actually wondering if maybe these bits should go in /usr/lib/python2.x/site-packages/luma/ instead of /usr/lib/luma, /usr/share/luma/ or /usr/share/luma/lib. But python packaging definitely isn't my area of expertise, so that could be a bad idea. :) rpmlint seems to think somewhere under /usr/share is the place to put things.
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: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139
------- Additional Comments From Jochen@herr-schmitt.de 2006-08-08 15:04 EST ------- I know this error message from rpmlint. But becouse other packages like yum does it in the same way. I decide not to change the package.
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: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139
------- Additional Comments From jwilson@redhat.com 2006-08-08 17:17 EST ------- Just because another package doesn't do the right thing doesn't make it okay (and the bulk of yum is in /usr/lib/python2.x/site-packages/yum/, only yum-plugins are in /usr/lib/ directly). I'll continue poking at the package for other feedback, but the way I'm leaning is the same as the advice I've gotten from other more experienced reviewers -- that this is a blocker.
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: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139
------- Additional Comments From Jochen@herr-schmitt.de 2006-08-09 12:20 EST ------- OK, you have right. Here the next release:
Spec URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/luma/luma.spec SRPM URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/luma/luma-2.3-4.src.rpm
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: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139
------- Additional Comments From Jochen@herr-schmitt.de 2006-08-10 14:06 EST ------- The new packaging guidelines for python packages says that *.pyo files should include as normal files into the package.
Therefor I have changed the packages:
Spec URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/luma/luma.spec SRPM URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/luma/luma-2.3-5.src.rpm
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: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139
tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tibbs@math.uh.edu
------- Additional Comments From tibbs@math.uh.edu 2006-10-06 01:19 EST ------- This builds fine in mock; rpmlint says: E: luma hardcoded-library-path in ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/usr/lib which seems bogus as the spec is doing this to fix brokenness in the upstream source.
W: luma mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 63, tab: line 5) Fix if you like.
The "Comment=" line in the .desktop file is ungrammatical; please consider changing it to read "Tool for managing LDAP servers".
Please also consider s/server/servers/ in %description.
When you call desktop-file-install, the vendor should be "fedora", not "Fedora".
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: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139
------- Additional Comments From Jochen@herr-schmitt.de 2006-10-09 14:50 EST ------- Next Release:
Spec URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/luma/luma.spec SRPM URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/luma/luma-2.3-6.src.rpm
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: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139
kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink@leemhuis.info |kevin@tummy.com OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2006-10-14 14:16 EST ------- OK - Spec file matches base package name. See below - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GPL) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: c1f3a8033a047a7046848833445ed496 luma-2.3.tar.bz2 c1f3a8033a047a7046848833445ed496 luma-2.3.tar.bz2.1 OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane:
SHOULD Items:
OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version
Issues:
1. The lumadata, lumalib and plugins macros seem like overkill to me. Not a blocker, but I would prefer if you remove them. It would make the spec more readable, IMHO.
2. On installing and trying to run, I get:
Could not read logger settings file. Reason: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: '/home/kevin/.luma/luma' Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/bin/luma", line 71, in ? startApplication() File "/usr/bin/luma", line 44, in startApplication gui.loadPlugins(splash) File "/usr/share/luma/lib/base/gui/MainWin.py", line 186, in loadPlugins pluginObject = PluginLoader(self.checkToLoad()) File "/usr/share/luma/lib/base/backend/PluginLoader.py", line 53, in __init__ self.importPluginMetas(pluginsToLoad) File "/usr/share/luma/lib/base/backend/PluginLoader.py", line 84, in importPluginMetas for x in self.pluginDirList: TypeError: iteration over non-sequence
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: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139
------- Additional Comments From Jochen@herr-schmitt.de 2006-10-15 15:06 EST ------- Next release:
Next Release:
Spec URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/luma/luma.spec SRPM URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/luma/luma-2.3-7.src.rpm
To #1 I didn't change the rpm macros, becouse I thing it improve the ability to changes the directories if necessary.
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: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2006-10-15 19:01 EST ------- Yeah, you will be maintaining it, so if you want to keep those macros it's up to you. :) However, lumalibs seems to be used in only 2 places and plugins never seems to be used.
The patch seems to get it running, but it's still prints some errors/warnings (new ones):
Could not read logger settings file. Reason: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: '/home/kevin/.luma/luma' Conflict in /usr/lib/qt-3.3/plugins/inputmethods/libqimsw-multi.so: Plugin uses incompatible Qt library! expected build key "x86_64 Linux g++-4.* full-config", got "i686 Linux g++- 4.* full-config". Conflict in /usr/lib/qt-3.3/plugins/inputmethods/libqimsw-none.so: Plugin uses incompatible Qt library! expected build key "x86_64 Linux g++-4.* full-config", got "i686 Linux g++- 4.* full-config". Conflict in /usr/lib/qt-3.3/plugins/inputmethods/libqsimple.so: Plugin uses incompatible Qt library! expected build key "x86_64 Linux g++-4.* full-config", got "i686 Linux g++- 4.* full-config". Conflict in /usr/lib/qt-3.3/plugins/inputmethods/libqxim.so: Plugin uses incompatible Qt library! expected build key "x86_64 Linux g++-4.* full-config", got "i686 Linux g++- 4.* full-config". Could not parse template file
Also, it doesn't build on x86_64.
The end of the build.log gives: + pushd /var/tmp/luma-2.3-7.fc6-root-mockbuild/lib /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.24941: line 33: pushd: /var/tmp/luma-2.3-7.fc6-root-mockbuild/ lib: No such file or directory error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.24941 (%install)
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: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139
------- Additional Comments From Jochen@herr-schmitt.de 2006-10-16 11:57 EST ------- Can you upload the whole build log.
Unfortunately, I haven't a 64 bit system, so I have no idea why the issue are ocured.
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: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2006-10-16 13:33 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=138594) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=138594&action=vie...) build.log from mock on a x86_64 box
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: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2006-10-16 13:34 EST ------- Attached the build.log from x86_64. I have a x86_64 test box that I would be happy to provide you an account on if you like. Just send me your ssh key in private email.
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: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139
------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta@iki.fi 2006-10-16 13:47 EST ------- The error in comment 16 looks odd to me (how does $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir} expand to /var/tmp/luma-2.3-7.fc6-root-mockbuild/lib ??? I get /var/tmp/luma-2.3-7.cmn6-root-scop//usr/lib64)
Anyway, this fixes it here on FC5 x86_64:
-pushd ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/%{_libdir} +pushd ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_prefix}/lib
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: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139
------- Additional Comments From Jochen@herr-schmitt.de 2006-10-16 15:10 EST ------- Hello kevin,
When I try to send you a mail, I got a
SMTP error from remote server after RCPT command: host mail.tummy.com[66.35.36.132]: 554 <moutng.kundenserver.de[212.227.126.187]>: Client host rejected: IP address is or has been used to send UCE.
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: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139
------- Additional Comments From Jochen@herr-schmitt.de 2006-10-16 15:14 EST ------- Accoriding to comment #20 I have uploaded a new relase:
Spec URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/luma/luma.spec SRPM URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/luma/luma-2.3-7.src.rpm
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: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139
------- Additional Comments From Jochen@herr-schmitt.de 2006-10-16 15:19 EST ------- Accoriding to comment #20 I have uploaded a new relase:
Spec URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/luma/luma.spec SRPM URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/luma/luma-2.3-7.src.rpm
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: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2006-10-16 16:35 EST ------- In reply to comment #21:
Sorry about that. Apparently we have gotten spams from that IP before. It should be unblocked now if you can resend...
In reply to comment #22 (and #23):
That does indeed get it building fine on x86_64.
The first time I run it, I get:
$ luma Could not read logger settings file. Reason: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: '/home/kevin/.luma/luma' Could not parse template file
Then running again gets:
$ luma Could not parse template file
That doesn't seem related to your packaging however, it looks like a upstream problem with it not creating the template directory when it creates the others?
Do you agree that the "Could not parse template file" is nothing to worry about?
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: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139
------- Additional Comments From Jochen@herr-schmitt.de 2006-10-17 10:19 EST ------- I have sent a message to the author for clarification, but I think this messages shodn't not harm the usage of luma.
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: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139
kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2006-10-17 12:10 EST ------- Yeah, I don't have a LDAP server handy here to fully test things, but the UI seems to work fine aside from the template warning.
I don't see any further blockers here, so this package is APPROVED.
Don't forget to close this bug NEXTRELEASE once it's been imported and built.
Also, consider reviewing another package thats waiting to help spread the review load out.
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: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2006-11-11 20:43 EST ------- Is there any reason this bug can't be closed now? Looks like it's been imported and owners.list updated... am I missing anything?
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: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139
Jochen@herr-schmitt.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla