Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: gpxe - Open Source network bootloader
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=553055
Summary: Review Request: gpxe - Open Source network bootloader Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: kanarip@kanarip.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/SPECS/gpxe.spec SRPM URL: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/f12/SRPMS/gpxe-0.9.9-2.src.rpm Description: gPXE is an open source (GPL) network bootloader. It provides a direct replacement for proprietary PXE ROMs, with many extra features such as DNS, HTTP, iSCSI, etc.
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=553055
--- Comment #1 from Jeroen van Meeuwen kanarip@kanarip.com 2010-01-06 18:23:40 EDT --- Special attention to the -devel subpackage being required (indirectly to make rpmlint stfu), while this subpackage is the actual option value to end-users.
The base package would ship a default Fedora configuration with binary files, and a script to build your own (requiring the -devel subpackage).
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=553055
Terje Røsten terjeros@phys.ntnu.no changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |terjeros@phys.ntnu.no
--- Comment #2 from Terje Røsten terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2010-01-07 06:23:15 EDT --- I am a bit confused about this package, the only file I need from gpxe - bin/undionly.kpxe - is not included at all.
As you said default config is Fedora specific, would it make sense to call the package including that config gpxe-fedora instead?
I feel a better description text and addition of a README.fedora explaining stuff is needed.
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=553055
Itamar Reis Peixoto itamar@ispbrasil.com.br changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |itamar@ispbrasil.com.br
--- Comment #3 from Itamar Reis Peixoto itamar@ispbrasil.com.br 2010-01-07 10:17:48 EDT --- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=8390
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=553055
Itamar Reis Peixoto itamar@ispbrasil.com.br changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |itamar@ispbrasil.com.br
--- Comment #4 from Itamar Reis Peixoto itamar@ispbrasil.com.br 2010-01-07 10:32:55 EDT --- already packaged for fedora, can I close 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=553055
--- Comment #5 from Terje Røsten terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2010-01-07 11:21:27 EDT --- Add this package as an gpxe-fedora subpackage in gpxe proper?
BTW: what is the purpose of the fedora specific files?
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=553055
--- Comment #6 from Jeroen van Meeuwen kanarip@kanarip.com 2010-01-08 11:14:50 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2)
I am a bit confused about this package, the only file I need from gpxe - bin/undionly.kpxe - is not included at all.
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that file was actually valuable.
As you said default config is Fedora specific, would it make sense to call the package including that config gpxe-fedora instead?
In that case, the gpxe package itself would basically be empty. I'm not objecting, but it would mean that for the gpxe package itself to be any good it would maybe also need to require the -fedora sub-package?
I feel a better description text and addition of a README.fedora explaining stuff is needed.
Sure, any suggestions?
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=553055
--- Comment #7 from Jeroen van Meeuwen kanarip@kanarip.com 2010-01-08 11:18:04 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4)
already packaged for fedora, can I close this bug ?
(In reply to comment #5)
Add this package as an gpxe-fedora subpackage in gpxe proper?
BTW: what is the purpose of the fedora specific files?
Fedora Infrastructure is attempting to provide a Fedora composed gPXE version to be included in the normal releases, making use of the HTTP boot capabilities. I realize now that a more appropriate name for this package would be gpxe-fedora, and I'll update the package / review request
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=553055
Itamar Reis Peixoto itamar@ispbrasil.com.br changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #8 from Itamar Reis Peixoto itamar@ispbrasil.com.br 2010-01-08 11:22:42 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7)
ok, like boot.kernel.org
I will review 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=553055
--- Comment #13 from Terje Røsten terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2011-02-08 15:39:57 EST --- Hi Jeroen, what is status here now? Do you still want this included?
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=553055
--- Comment #14 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2011-12-16 05:14:33 EST --- Ping again Jeroen.
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=553055
Daniel Berrange berrange@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED CC| |berrange@redhat.com Resolution| |DUPLICATE Last Closed| |2012-03-19 16:56:58
--- Comment #15 from Daniel Berrange berrange@redhat.com 2012-03-19 16:56:58 EDT --- Dunno why this was left open for so long - 'gpxe' has existed in Fedora repos since before this BZ was even filed. See review bug 492181.
Further gpxe is dead upstream and replaced by ipxe, for which review bug 804826 is open.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 492181 ***
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org