[Bug 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
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=458054 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
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=458054 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #35 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-04-03 16:44:37 EDT --- cvs done. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
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=458054 David Carter dcar...@entertain-me.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
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=458054 --- Comment #30 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2009-04-01 08:55:54 EDT --- Those look solid, and demonstrate progress up the Packaging Guidlines learning curve. :) So you still need a sponsor? -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
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=458054 --- Comment #31 from David Carter dcar...@entertain-me.com 2009-04-01 11:59:08 EDT --- I'm willing to commit (figuratively and literally) if you're willing to sponsor :) -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
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=458054 --- Comment #32 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2009-04-01 12:19:42 EDT --- I am, just wanted to make sure you'd not found another in the interim. APPROVED. I've also marked your FAS account sponsored, so once that all propagates, do you CVS request, import, build, and close this bug. Welcome aboard, and feel free to bug me with questions, etc. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
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=458054 David Carter dcar...@entertain-me.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #33 from David Carter dcar...@entertain-me.com 2009-04-01 16:35:27 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: arm4 Short Description: Application Response Measurement V4.0 Owners: dcar...@entertain-me.com Branches: F-10 F-11 InitialCC: l...@jcomserv.net -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
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=458054 --- Comment #34 from David Carter dcar...@entertain-me.com 2009-04-01 16:39:18 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: arm4 Short Description: Application Response Measurement V4.0 Owners: grandcross Branches: F-10 F-11 InitialCC: limb -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
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=458054 --- Comment #28 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2009-03-31 09:25:37 EDT --- Sorry for the colossal delay, work and real life have been full as of late. I commented on 466331. Any others? -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
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=458054 --- Comment #29 from David Carter dcar...@entertain-me.com 2009-03-31 18:31:14 EDT --- Yes, I re-reviewed 462535 after some changes. Also 479413 which has since been closed. I haven't reviewed any others as my life has been hectic as well :) I may have some new modules over the next couple of months though... -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
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=458054 --- Comment #26 from David Carter dcar...@entertain-me.com 2008-12-18 12:10:52 EDT --- New practice review completed (#466331). I'll do one or two more this week now that exams are over. Also, the folks at HP are in discussions about relaxing the license restrictions on the code that got removed. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
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=458054 --- Comment #27 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2008-12-18 12:15:41 EDT --- Sounds great. I'll be AFK all next week, so I'll go over the whole bundle Monday the 28th. Or so. :) -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
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=458054 --- Comment #23 from Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-03 10:22:17 EDT --- Looks good. And we thus have Mr. Callaway's legal blessing? -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
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=458054 --- Comment #24 from David Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-03 13:02:35 EDT --- All that remains is Eclipse licensed, so we're good. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
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=458054 Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #25 from Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-03 13:11:21 EDT --- Then without further ado. . . APPROVED. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
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=458054 --- Comment #21 from Stefan Ruppert [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-02 03:03:39 EDT --- I'm the author of some parts of the ARM4SDK but I'm not the copyright owner. Also it seems that the ARM4SDK development is dead since 2003 or 2004. In the meanwhile I have founded my own company MyARM. And we at MyARM would also prefer to see the ARM4SDK license changed to a free license. I can write an email regarding ARM4SDK license change to the people how were involved in the development of the ARM4SDK at that time! David, you are right release delay of the ARM4SDK was about licensing issues. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
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=458054 --- Comment #22 from David Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-02 17:44:31 EDT --- Updated versions: Spec URL: http://arm4.org/Downloads/0.8.1-0.6/arm4.spec SRPM URL: http://arm4.org/Downloads/0.8.1-0.6/arm4-0.8.1-0.6.fc9.src.rpm Based on the 0.8.1 release which removed all code related to the SDK. Unfortunately this includes the test programs, so those packages have been removed as well. Also, as per Stefan's suggestion, all static libraries have been removed. Passed all the usual build tests with the same rpmlint warnings as before. 6th time's the charm? :) -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
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=458054 --- Comment #20 from David Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-01 17:50:19 EDT --- The legal opinion is in. Looks like I'll have to some modification. From Tom Callaway: Unfortunately, it isn't okay. This is non-free, because there is no permission to redistribute modified versions of code under this license, only to Make copies of the original file you download and distribute it. That, combined with: Except as expressly stated above, HP and tang-IT grant no other licenses, express or implied, by estoppel or otherwise, to any intellectual property rights. means that we cannot assume permission to distribute modified/derived works is implied. HP usually does a better job of this, perhaps they'd be willing to fix this license, or re-license this work under an established free license? Stefan, any comments on the last paragraph? I know licensing held up the initial SDK release -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
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=458054 --- Comment #19 from David Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-30 08:42:15 EDT --- Good point Stefan. Truth is, I hadn't realized they were in there until review. Now that life's little annoyances are out of the way, I should be able to get an update in the next couple of days. BTW Jon, Stefan is one of the stakeholders in that extra license file :) -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
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=458054 Stefan Ruppert [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #17 from Stefan Ruppert [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-26 15:11:36 EDT --- I stumbled over this Review Request and I'm happy to see that the arm4.org ARM is in process to be included into Red Hat distribution. Just a comment about static libraries. I do not think a static library should be build. ARM is designed as a dynamic library which can be linked to an application implicitly by using -larm4 during link time. But the main usage is to dlopen() the libarm4.so. Just like the Apache mod_arm4 does. See section 1.7 Linking to an ARM Implementation of the standard documents for ARM 4.0 or ARM 4.1! I don't know the Red Hat policies for libraries. But we should not encourage users of ARM to link statically! Any comments? Regards, Stefan -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
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=458054 --- Comment #18 from Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-26 15:30:12 EDT --- RH/Fedora discourages, but does not outright forbid static libraries. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exclusion_of_Static_Libraries -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
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=458054 --- Comment #16 from David Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-12 09:00:26 EDT --- I'm been looking into the two issues you mentioned. Static libraries will be a quick fix. The license stuff may take a bit more thought. I've been so involved in the project I forgot about the issue of the SDK code. It's certainly not a significant part of the project. My options are to rip out the offending code (used mostly in the tests), or to get it approved as is. It is potentially useful as part of the distributed package as well. I'll keep you posted. - Dave -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
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=458054 --- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-04 12:02:37 EDT --- (In reply to comment #13) Updated versions: Spec URL: http://arm4.org/Downloads/0.8-0.5/arm4.spec SRPM URL: http://arm4.org/Downloads/0.8-0.5/arm4-0.8-0.5.fc9.src.rpm I must say though, it's kind of annoying to hit an rpmlint update in the few short hour between submission and review :) Fortunately that isn't THAT common. :) Some comments on these reported errors though. First of all, despite the assertion of rpmlint, there are many cases where this is a valid design choice, such as when a common error handler is put in a library. In this case, it was used in panic conditions only, and I still think that's valid. At this point, the fix is largely cosmetic, although I will address this more completely for a future release. Which brings me to the larger issue. Fixing this will always require an architectural rethink. At the very least, it will require a change to the library version number, potentially putting it out of sync with the upstream version. Ultimately this isn't the responsibility of the packager, but of the original developer, and as pointed out already the developer may just say deal with it. Honestly, if I weren't also the upstream developer, I wouldn't have changed anything. As it is, I'm fixing internal libraries that provide no public API for problems that I don't think exist. I guess my point is that this warning should largely be ignored during reviews. The dangers of not doing so are too great. OK, rant done, the new code removes these warnings. If you really feel that strongly about it, why not make that case in a bug against rpmlint? It's always being changed to adapt to different use cases. And remember, rpmlint silence is not a prerequisite for approval, especially where warnings are concerned, it's more there to encourage discussion, documentation, and to make sure that both packager and reviewer have a better idea what's really going on. With regard to your comments on the practice review, I did use the checklist at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines. I'll do a better job of noting the pass/fail states next time. I'll do a couple of additional reviews later this week when I get some of my work out of the way. Sounds good. One or two more, plus this package's approval, and we're in business. I'll post a formal review of this package soon. Thanks! Dave -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
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=458054
--- Comment #15 from Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-04 15:54:12 EDT ---
MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.
Clean now. :)
- MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK.
- MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines
.
OK.
- MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK.
- MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
- MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
- MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.
Says EPL, which is ok, but what's in COPYING?
- MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK.
- MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is
unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora
is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest
(http://www.ioccc.org/).
OK.
- MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
OK.
- MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
OK on i386 F-9.
- MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch needs to have a bug filed
in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work
on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next
to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have bugzilla
entries during the review process, so they should put this description in the
comment until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and
replace the long explanation with the bug number. The bug should be marked as
blocking one (or more) of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues:
FE-ExcludeArch-x86 , FE-ExcludeArch-x64 , FE-ExcludeArch-ppc ,
FE-ExcludeArch-ppc64
NA.
- MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
OK.
- MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
OK.
- MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun. If the package has multiple subpackages with libraries, each
subpackage should also have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig.
An example of the correct syntax for this is:
%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
OK.
- MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
OK.
- MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory. Refer to the Guidelines for examples.
OK.
- MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
OK.
- MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
OK.
- MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ).
OK.
- MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines .
OK.
- MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is
described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines .
OK.
- MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity)
OK.
- MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
properly if it is not present.
OK.
-
[Bug 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
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=458054 --- Comment #13 from David Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-04 02:49:58 EDT --- Updated versions: Spec URL: http://arm4.org/Downloads/0.8-0.5/arm4.spec SRPM URL: http://arm4.org/Downloads/0.8-0.5/arm4-0.8-0.5.fc9.src.rpm I must say though, it's kind of annoying to hit an rpmlint update in the few short hour between submission and review :) Some comments on these reported errors though. First of all, despite the assertion of rpmlint, there are many cases where this is a valid design choice, such as when a common error handler is put in a library. In this case, it was used in panic conditions only, and I still think that's valid. At this point, the fix is largely cosmetic, although I will address this more completely for a future release. Which brings me to the larger issue. Fixing this will always require an architectural rethink. At the very least, it will require a change to the library version number, potentially putting it out of sync with the upstream version. Ultimately this isn't the responsibility of the packager, but of the original developer, and as pointed out already the developer may just say deal with it. Honestly, if I weren't also the upstream developer, I wouldn't have changed anything. As it is, I'm fixing internal libraries that provide no public API for problems that I don't think exist. I guess my point is that this warning should largely be ignored during reviews. The dangers of not doing so are too great. OK, rant done, the new code removes these warnings. With regard to your comments on the practice review, I did use the checklist at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines. I'll do a better job of noting the pass/fail states next time. I'll do a couple of additional reviews later this week when I get some of my work out of the way. Thanks! Dave -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
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=458054 --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-31 11:37:16 EDT --- rpmlint clean, except for some things above that we've come to an understanding, and these: arm4.i386: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libarm4db_bdb.so.1.0.0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] This library package calls exit() or _exit(), probably in a non-fork() context. Doing so from a library is strongly discouraged - when a library function calls exit(), it prevents the calling program from handling the error, reporting it to the user, closing files properly, and cleaning up any state that the program has. It is preferred for the library to return an actual error code and let the calling program decide how to handle the situation. arm4.i386: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libarm4db_common.so.1.0.0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] This library package calls exit() or _exit(), probably in a non-fork() context. Doing so from a library is strongly discouraged - when a library function calls exit(), it prevents the calling program from handling the error, reporting it to the user, closing files properly, and cleaning up any state that the program has. It is preferred for the library to return an actual error code and let the calling program decide how to handle the situation. arm4.i386: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libarm4db.so.1.0.0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] This library package calls exit() or _exit(), probably in a non-fork() context. Doing so from a library is strongly discouraged - when a library function calls exit(), it prevents the calling program from handling the error, reporting it to the user, closing files properly, and cleaning up any state that the program has. It is preferred for the library to return an actual error code and let the calling program decide how to handle the situation. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
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=458054 --- Comment #11 from David Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-31 11:57:22 EDT --- How'd you get those warnings? rpmlint doesn't show them for me. These calls are made when assertions fail. I can remove them. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
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=458054 --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-31 12:04:25 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11) How'd you get those warnings? rpmlint doesn't show them for me. Not sure. I just updated to the very latest F-9 rpmlint, rpmlint-0.85-2.fc9.noarch. These calls are made when assertions fail. I can remove them. Probably best to. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
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=458054 --- Comment #8 from David Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-30 17:19:44 EDT --- Whoops... a little too quick on the enter... the correct files are: Spec URL: http://arm4.org/Downloads/0.8-0.4/arm4.spec SRPM URL: http://arm4.org/Downloads/0.8-0.4/arm4-0.8-0.4.fc9.src.rpm -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
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=458054 --- Comment #7 from David Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-30 17:17:56 EDT --- Updated version based on the just released upstream version: Spec URL: http://arm4.org/Downloads/arm4.spec SRPM URL: http://arm4.org/Downloads/arm4-0.8-0.1.fc9.beta2.src.rpm Description: An open source implementation of the Open Group's Application Response Measurement standard Version 4.0. This agent and daemon is capable of measuring transaction response times across multiple tiers and correlating them to determine the true source of application response problems. See http://www.arm4.org for more information. NOTE: This doesn't include any SE Linux support. That will be done as a follow on once this is in the system. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
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=458054 --- Comment #9 from David Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-30 18:47:53 EDT --- Practice reviewed new package python-foolscap bug number 462535 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
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=458054 --- Comment #5 from David Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-27 06:51:19 EDT --- I'm encountering many small selinux issues that keep holding me up. I'm going to prepare a non-selinux release until these are fixed. I should have this ready within a day or two. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
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=458054 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-27 08:34:36 EDT --- Excellent. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
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=458054 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 09:11:06 EDT --- Update? -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
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=458054 Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #1 from Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-19 11:01:48 EDT --- Hi, I'll do a full review, and can sponsor you once this is approved. Also, I'd like to see some unofficial reviews of others' packages. Post links here. To begin with, rpmlint on SRPM: arm4.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libarm4.so A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a development package. arm4.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libarm4_null.so A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a development package. Probably ok. arm4.i386: W: non-standard-uid /var/arm4 arm4 A file in this package is owned by a non standard user. Standard users are: root, bin, daemon, adm, lp, sync, shutdown, halt, mail, news, uucp, operator, games, gopher, ftp, nobody. arm4.i386: W: non-standard-gid /var/arm4 arm4 A file in this package is owned by a non standard group. Standard groups are: root, bin, daemon, sys, adm, tty, disk, lp, mem, kmem, wheel, mail, news, uucp, man, games, gopher, dip, ftp, lock, nobody, users. Ok. But might this not be better placed in /var/lib? What is this dir for? arm4.i386: W: no-reload-entry /etc/rc.d/init.d/arm4 In your init script (/etc/rc.d/init.d/your_file), you don't have a 'reload' entry, which is necessary for good functionality. Fix. If the daemon doesn't support this, just duplicate the restart entry. arm4-devel.i386: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. Fix. arm4-java.i386: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. Fix. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
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=458054 --- Comment #2 from David Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-19 12:51:52 EDT --- Thanks for the review. I'm already in the midst of preparing an updated version, and most of your comments have already been incorporated. I need some advice from the selinux guys before the directory setup is complete, as some temp files may have to move out of temp, so it may be a couple of days before I get an updated version ready for review. Some comments... arm4.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libarm4.so A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a development package. arm4.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libarm4_null.so A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a development package. These are needed in the non-devel versions, as many ARM programs are designed to dynamically link against these libraries. An example is the apache mod_arm4 module, which I'll be packaging as soon as I get the selinux issues worked out :) I've moved the offending directories from /var/arm4 to /var/lib/arm4. There is documentation for the devel and java packages that will be included. I'm updating the start up file as you requested. Finally, if you're reviewing this, you may want to consider reviewing 458279 which is a python module related to this. Thanks for your efforts! -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
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=458054 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-19 13:14:35 EDT --- Sounds good. I'll watch this space for updates. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
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=458054 Itamar Reis Peixoto [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Alias||arm4 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
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=458054 David Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||458279 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
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=458054 David Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
