[Bug 749232] Review Request: nagios-plugins-lcgdm - nagios probes for DPM / LFC nodes

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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=749232

--- Comment #3 from Ricardo Rocha <rocha.porto at gmail.com> 2011-11-04 11:59:34 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> A quick first parse.
> 
> Some similar comments to bug #749132.
> 
> 1) Add details about making the tar ball.

Fixed.

> 2) CFLAGS
>   It seems that Fedora and RHEL6 do have a %{cmake} macro to do all this
>   for you. See $(rpm -E '%{cmake}'
>   Assuming RHEL5 as well then you can case the dist tag to do it by hand.
>   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:DistTag and effectively implement
>   the same thing by hand.

I simply started using the cmake macro and it's looking fine - even for RHEL5.

> 3) rpmlint
> 
> nagios-plugins-dpm-disk.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
> nagios-plugins-dpm-head.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
> 
>    okay this seems to be normal for nagios-plugins even it seems wrong 
>    to me, precedent is there so fine.

Yes, i had followed the feedback from:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=423821#c6

The other one is E: no-binary, but i couldn't make it noarch to have it going
in /usr/lib64 along with the rest.

> 4) There are directories such as 
>    /etc/nrpe.d/
>    /usr/lib64/nagios/plugins/lcgdm
>    /usr/lib64/nagios/plugins
>    /usr/lib64/nagios
>     ... 
> 
>    that you create but are not part of your package nor owned
>    by something you pull in.
> 
>    It makes sense as you have done not to require nagios to make
>    the probes easily available to other monitoring systems so you should
>    at least own the directories.
>   
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership

Thanks for the pointer, i had a new look.

I'll add the ownership of /etc/nrpe.d.

However looking at the other nagios plugins packages, they all seem to require
both nagios-common and nagios-plugins, so i was thinking of adding that to
nagios-plugins-lcgdm-common. They provide the remaining dirs.

The packages are called nagios-plugins-*, so maybe thinking that other
monitoring systems might use them is not needed?

> 
> 5) When you require a sub package it should be exactly matched
> 
>   Requires: nagios-plugins-lcgdm-common%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}

Fixed.

> 6) You duplicate 
>    %doc LICENSE README RELEASE-NOTES
>    but they are only needed in just one package with the exception 
>    of the LICENSE which should be in all packages that can be installed in
>    isolation as defined by the inter requires of your sub packages.

Just to make sure... should i just put the %doc LICENSE in the 3 packages
depending on nagios-plugins-lcgdm-common?

If i don't put a %doc at all, rpmlint complains of no-documentation for
package.

After the doubts above, i'll provide a new spec/srcrpm.

Thanks.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.