[Bug 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 Eric Christensen e...@christensenplace.us changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #87 from Eric Christensen e...@christensenplace.us 2009-07-13 21:32:42 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: fedora-security-guide-en-US Short Description: A Guide to Securing Fedora Linux Owners: sparks radsy Branches: F-10 F-11 InitialCC: mhideo The previous CVS name was in error. Sorry, my mistake. -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 Eric Christensen e...@christensenplace.us changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #88 from Eric Christensen e...@christensenplace.us 2009-07-13 23:41:49 EDT --- abadger1999 fixed this for me. -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 Eric Christensen e...@christensenplace.us changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||511184 -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 Eric Christensen e...@christensenplace.us changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #85 from Eric Christensen e...@christensenplace.us 2009-07-10 08:59:32 EDT --- (In reply to comment #84) CVS done. Sorry... I forgot about this being a Publican doc... The package name is actually fedora-security-guide-en-US. Can that be changed, please? -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 Eric Christensen e...@christensenplace.us changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #86 from Eric Christensen e...@christensenplace.us 2009-07-10 13:57:10 EDT --- (In reply to comment #85) (In reply to comment #84) CVS done. Sorry... I forgot about this being a Publican doc... The package name is actually fedora-security-guide-en-US. Can that be changed, please? Disregard... -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 Eric Christensen e...@christensenplace.us changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(mhi...@redhat.com | |) | --- Comment #81 from Eric Christensen e...@christensenplace.us 2009-07-09 20:50:16 EDT --- Approved to use a hacked version of Publican as long as it isn't changing the building which would having problems in koji, too. (which this one isn't). https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Docs_IRC_log_20090709 -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 --- Comment #82 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2009-07-09 21:13:52 EDT --- Okay. Package is APPROVED for inclusion in Fedora by Jens Petersen. I will still feel more comfortable once the publican patch goes into rawhide: do hope that will happen very soon. Since it has been tested and there are no known problems with it I don't seen any reason not to go ahead with that. In the meantime I will try to update the package to be based off the fedora publican.spec since svn is out of sync. -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 Eric Christensen e...@christensenplace.us changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #83 from Eric Christensen e...@christensenplace.us 2009-07-09 21:36:09 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: fedora-security-guide Short Description: A Guide to Securing Fedora Linux Owners: sparks radsy Branches: F-10 F-11 InitialCC: mhideo -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 Eric Christensen e...@christensenplace.us changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on|478950 | -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #84 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-07-09 23:42:12 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 --- Comment #80 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2009-07-07 21:13:13 EDT --- I can approve the package (no problem technically there) but I would really like to hear an official word from Fedora Docs saying they are happy to import packages to Fedora with a forked version of publican until (if?) my patch gets included. (Again I am more than happy to build the patched publican in fedora if someone can give me a green light for that.) BTW where can one get the publican-1.0 test code? And who is going to build it for F12? -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 --- Comment #79 from Eric Christensen e...@christensenplace.us 2009-06-30 08:20:42 EDT --- Jens, Where are we now on this? -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 Eric Christensen e...@christensenplace.us 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 Eric Christensen e...@christensenplace.us changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(e...@christensenp | |lace.us)| --- Comment #77 from Eric Christensen e...@christensenplace.us 2009-06-15 21:51:02 EDT --- SPEC:http://sparks.fedorapeople.org/Packages/security-guide/fedora-security-guide-en-US.spec SRPM: http://sparks.fedorapeople.org/Packages/security-guide/fedora-security-guide-en-US-1.0-14.fc11.src.rpm RPMLINT: [christens...@localhost rpm]$ rpmlint SRPMS/fedora-security-guide-en-US-1.0-14.fc11.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [christens...@localhost rpm]$ rpmlint SPECS/fedora-security-guide-en-US.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(mhi...@redhat.com ||) --- Comment #78 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2009-06-15 22:18:26 EDT --- Thanks, Eric: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1416026 Mike, any idea when we might be able to apply the publican patch to fedora? -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 --- Comment #76 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2009-05-22 02:15:04 EDT --- http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/publican/publican-0.45-0.7+fedora.fc10.noarch.rpm This one I actually tested with a scratch build in brew (see the publican bug). So I am confident now that the patch should be ok with the current redhat workflow. Here is a koji scratch build done with it too: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1369750 -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rland...@redhat.com Flag||needinfo?(e...@christensenp ||lace.us) --- Comment #75 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2009-05-08 03:29:15 EDT --- Eric, Mike, Josh, Ryan, Rueddi, et al: can you please test the package in comment 74 to make sure it works for you so we can move forward with getting the fedora publican upstream into publican, thanks! It should be a drop in replacement for current publican-0.45 just with added fedora support. -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 --- Comment #74 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2009-05-01 05:42:13 EDT --- I reworked my patch to preserve the name of all the current rpms (src and noarch): Please test: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/publican/publican-0.45-0.4+naming.fc11.noarch.rpm This package should have brew-* and web-* targets continuing to work unchanged as before (only changes to the .spec and tarball names), and provide new make targets fedora-* and koji-* for creating fedora rpms and pushing builds to koji. -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 --- Comment #73 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2009-04-28 19:38:20 EDT --- I sort of missed these comments at the time. (In reply to comment #63) Another option is to look at a streamlined set of review items for publican-created doc packages... We've never explicitly done this but in practice, people know they don't have to check, for instance, shared library guidelines when writing and reviewing a pure python module. Someone would first need to propose what the specific set of review items for publican-created doc packages should be. The way to do this is to create a wiki page under: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ I agree with this idea: it would be good to have an explicit Packaging Guideline for publican documentation. Basically it all rests on publican since it can generate srpm packages directly from SCM and should be capable of submitting packages directly to koji from svn (like it does for brew inside Red Hat), so in that sense this is nothing to review once publican's templates have been approved as good for Fedora. The general view seems to be that documentation writers and translators in particular should not have to do all the cvs jigs to get books built in the buildsystem so I think yes some special provisions are needed for publican publishing to Fedora. (Other options would include a special writer packager category say in FAS/koji or even a separate repo for documentation publishing (eg dist-f12-docs?).) -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 --- Comment #71 from Michael Hideo mhi...@redhat.com 2009-04-21 18:40:31 EDT --- Thanks again, Jens for the patch. I have tested it in the build system, the indexer and the catalog systems and they are good! Well done! I do have one concern that I need to talk to some folks about and that is how to coordinate who does the rpm rolling of translated content and how they are going to make sure that multiple writers/translators, accountable for multiple branches, don't clobber each other's rpms. I need to think that through. - Mike -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 --- Comment #72 from Michael Hideo mhi...@redhat.com 2009-04-21 18:41:30 EDT --- mhideo okay, so my plan is to talk to the writers and translation to get their feedback on replacing the product and edition tags and see how that will effect them. mhideo thank you again! jensp ok cool - glad to be of assistance jensp though maybe the current map: jensp edition - rpmversion jensp pubsnum - rpmrelease jensp product version - disttag mhideo ahh yes, clever! jensp is workable anyway I feel for rhel at least jensp jboss might be harder, dunno -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 --- Comment #70 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2009-04-20 20:32:56 EDT --- http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/publican/publican-0.45-0.2+naming.fc11.noarch.rpm is a test package with simplified srpm naming. Then fedora publican can have a make target koji-en-US which would submit fedora-security-guide-en-US-1.0-12.fc10.src to koji directly creating fedora-security-guide-en-US-1.0-12.fc10.noarch. BTW I thinking again about the naming: how about we just call the fedora package Fedora-Security_Guide - that would bring it in line with standard publican book naming I think. -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on|482972 | -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 --- Comment #69 from Michael Hideo mhi...@redhat.com 2009-04-16 22:25:08 EDT --- Had a discussion with Jens to further understand his concerns. A solution would be do have the .src rpm w/o the version number but the resultant rpms would have the version number. This would ensure that the library system can still track the catalog. This would require a publican change and a policy change within documentation to sync the productversion with edition tags. Probably best then to remove the edition tags. I'll poll the teams to check on how editions are being handled. fedora-Deployment_Guide-en-US-11-19.srpm |_ | fedora-Deployment_Guide-11-web-en-US-11-19.rpm |_ fedora-Deployment_Guide-11-desktop-en-US-11-19.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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(peter...@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #67 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2009-04-14 12:34:36 EDT --- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Minutes/20090331 contains the full discussion - note FPC explicitly expressed the hope that Fedora releases would not be flooded for multiple versions of every publican manual, unless it is really useful but deferred the individual decisions and burden to the Fedora Docs Project. (For the record: I am disappointed that it was decided to push these two changes into Fedora Packaging Guidelines rather than fix the real problems in publican, but nevermind: embedding desktop files in spec files is also generally a bad idea since it basically make them hard to translate.) So back to my questions in comment 59: * what package are we reviewing here: fedora-security-guide or fedora-security-guide-11? Note there is nothing to stop a fedora-security-guide.src source package from generating a fedora-security-guide-11.noarch binary package, though I don't recommend that personally. If you go for the later base package name than you will have to do a new package review for every release, and how are you planning to deal with OS package upgrades? The versioned package should really obsolete the old package so that the new package will get installed on upgrades. Hence making such parallel installs pretty useless: since rpm does not play well with parallel installs of packages that obsolete each other. In this sense Fedora is a very different OS from RHEL. Parallel packages is going to create a lot more work and packaging complexity - I warn you now here - it has already been well tried and is know (also from my personal experience) not to work well for RPM systems anyway. I fear the approach may be building on sand or thin ice. What you probably want and I would recommend is a base package called fedora-security-guide and then if you really want other version back or forward ported to a release they would be separate packages called fedora-security-guide-F10, etc, as Spot also suggested. In practice I am skeptical if it would really be useful for this particular guide. Also the kernel package for example is capable of parallel installs - in principle there is no reason why different versions of publican packages could not parallel installed too under the same name. Things are worse than that though if you read the above FPC meeting log they further were opposed to individual publican packages per language (though I am not personally opposed to this) they believe there should be one big package with all the translations and then just subpackages for all the language. While this would simplify the base package naming we know this is a bottleneck for building translations of manuals. So taking that into account my overall recommendation at this early stage of fedora publican packaging is just to go with fedora-security-guide-en_US.spec and fedora-security-guide-en_US.noarch. I don't see any win in including the OS version in the package names currently for fedora. -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 --- Comment #68 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2009-04-14 12:40:10 EDT --- I just add a comment that I think it should be pretty trivial to write a small script to massage publican generated .spec into a form more suitable to Fedora than RHEL - so I don't feel having to use the publican .spec verbatim to simplify packaging for writers and translators is a requirement here. -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 Joshua Wulf jw...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jw...@redhat.com Flag||needinfo?(peter...@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #66 from Joshua Wulf jw...@redhat.com 2009-04-08 23:15:38 EDT --- Jens, FeSCO has approved the documentation naming guideline: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meeting-20090403#FPC_report_-_2009-03-31 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/DocumentationNaming Can you please approve this package now? -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 --- Comment #65 from Michael Hideo mhi...@redhat.com 2009-03-30 00:30:34 EDT --- (In reply to comment #64) Thanks, Spot, That makes sense! I can see how it all coalesces and fits together in my head. Eric, do you want to draft a policy for submission or would you like me to do it. I can have it done by Monday for your review if you like. Josh has taken this on and drafted: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Publican_Documentation_Packages He has integrated it into the FPC agenda. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/DraftsTodo For your review. Thank you, Josh. - Mike -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 --- Comment #61 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-03-26 06:20:26 EDT --- Assuming you mean the version appearing in the spec file name: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 --- Comment #62 from Michael Hideo mhi...@redhat.com 2009-03-26 09:00:04 EDT --- Hi Spot, I am not sure of the process, but i think we have a breakthrough here: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/2009-March/msg00153.html I think we have what could be seen as a waiver on the two issues but i don't know the process to follow through. Can you help navigate that? Cheers, Mike -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 --- Comment #63 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-03-26 18:27:37 EDT --- I'm assuming you're referring to Toshio's statement that: Another option is to look at a streamlined set of review items for publican-created doc packages... We've never explicitly done this but in practice, people know they don't have to check, for instance, shared library guidelines when writing and reviewing a pure python module. Someone would first need to propose what the specific set of review items for publican-created doc packages should be. The way to do this is to create a wiki page under: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ Once that is done, then add a link to the new page to the todo list for the Fedora Packaging Committee (FPC) by editing the table here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/DraftsTodo The FPC meets once every two weeks, and is scheduled to meet next Tuesday. If the FPC approves it, it will go to the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee (FESCo) for ratification. Once they ratify, then you could start opening publican doc packages for review under the new guidelines. Hope that helps. -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 --- Comment #64 from Michael Hideo mhi...@redhat.com 2009-03-26 20:11:01 EDT --- Thanks, Spot, That makes sense! I can see how it all coalesces and fits together in my head. Eric, do you want to draft a policy for submission or would you like me to do it. I can have it done by Monday for your review if you like. - Mike -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 Jeff Fearn jfe...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jfe...@redhat.com --- Comment #60 from Jeff Fearn jfe...@redhat.com 2009-03-25 22:04:32 EDT --- (In reply to comment #47) I don't want to say but the version number is back in the file names again... Please supply a link to the Packaging Guidelines where this ruls is detailed. I have searched and can not find it. -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 --- Comment #58 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2009-03-16 05:28:16 EDT --- (In reply to comment #57) Don't we have a precedent for this already? We have version numbers (of a sort) on compatibility libraries in Fedora, like libsoup22 for instance, so we can carry multiple parallel versions. We can do whatever we want... :) but do we really want to ship all the old relnotes in every release? Can't people just read them on the web. I am not veto'ing parallel install per se, but maybe it is worth considerng what is so special about docs packages that warrants/necessitates parallel install since we don't really do this for any other packages except libraries/tools needed occasionally for back-compatibility. Can anyone clarify the difference between that situation and this? I guess libsoup22 was actually needed by one or more other packages in the distro? (Looks like it could/should actually be dropped now though - nothing seems to need it anymore - which illustrates the problem of keeping old compat packages around.) If someone wants to work on Fedora 11 release notes in Fedora 10, and be able to install them in parallel to see the results of their WIP, how would we accomplish that, without having some distinction in the name of the package? Doesn't publican allow writers to create html/pdf file output for reviewing docs, etc without having to roll an 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 --- Comment #59 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2009-03-16 05:30:28 EDT --- Are we going to do a new package review for every release? :) The two main questions in my mind are: 1) What is the name of the .spec file? 2) What is the name of the base package? The rest is just auxillary in my mind. -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 --- Comment #56 from Michael Hideo mhi...@redhat.com 2009-03-13 02:36:47 EDT --- (In reply to comment #55) Turning this: fedora-Security_Guide-10-en-US-1-12.fc10.noarch Into: fedora-Security_Guide-en-US-10-12.fc10.noarch I think I got it in my head. Would that work? Sounds good to me. :-) thanks, Jens. lol, believe it or not, i just found out it would break the indexing tool we use to separate versions from editions. back to the drawing board. sorry for the distraction guys. - Mike -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 Paul W. Frields sticks...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sticks...@gmail.com, ||tcall...@redhat.com --- Comment #57 from Paul W. Frields sticks...@gmail.com 2009-03-13 08:32:13 EDT --- Thanks for trying Mike. Don't we have a precedent for this already? We have version numbers (of a sort) on compatibility libraries in Fedora, like libsoup22 for instance, so we can carry multiple parallel versions. Can anyone clarify the difference between that situation and this? If someone wants to work on Fedora 11 release notes in Fedora 10, and be able to install them in parallel to see the results of their WIP, how would we accomplish that, without having some distinction in the name of the package? -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 --- Comment #51 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2009-03-12 03:16:05 EDT --- Attached is a screenshot of a practical use case where we are using installing different versions of the fedora security guide on the same distro. By having separate Fedora versioned packages, system administrators can read and perform specific fedora release procedures. This saves them from having to install the Security Guide package on 3 different instances of Fedora. Does this make sense? Parallel install (ie having multiple versions installed) is really another issue. I can see publican's way makes sense on RHEL but I am not sure on Fedora where we have a new release every 6 months or so. How many fedora-security-guide's do we want to have in a fedora release? Or maybe you are thinking about subpackaging. The base package name does not have to determine the name of the package that is installed. I don't think we support installing multiple versions of the fedora release-notes either say. I am not recommending this, but fedora-security-guide could provide a fedora-security-guide-11 package for F11, etc, allowing parallel install. As I see it though there should only be one base package in Fedora and it should be named fedora-security-guide (going by the current submission). How fedora-security-guide.spec gets created is not really Fedora's problem. Publican spec files are not that hard to write and could easily be scripted, if publican can't do the Right Thing for Fedora packaging. I see parallel installation as a corner-case and not something Fedora needs go out of its way to support: IMHO most users would only want the latest version of the guide installed - are the changes in security between Fedora releases really that big? But if the Fedora Packaging Committee can be persuaded that we need an exception for Publican or approves packaging guidelines for publican packages that would be fine. -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 --- Comment #52 from Michael Hideo mhi...@redhat.com 2009-03-12 06:44:32 EDT --- (In reply to comment #51) Attached is a screenshot of a practical use case where we are using installing different versions of the fedora security guide on the same distro. By having separate Fedora versioned packages, system administrators can read and perform specific fedora release procedures. This saves them from having to install the Security Guide package on 3 different instances of Fedora. Does this make sense? Parallel install (ie having multiple versions installed) is really another issue. I can see publican's way makes sense on RHEL but I am not sure on Fedora where we have a new release every 6 months or so. How many fedora-security-guide's do we want to have in a fedora release? As many fedora platforms as the system administrators are administering. Or maybe you are thinking about subpackaging. The base package name does not have to determine the name of the package that is installed. I don't think we support installing multiple versions of the fedora release-notes either say. If I could provide a metric that shows that people reading the fedora 10 release notes online are not running fedora 10, would you be supportive of this request? I am not recommending this, but fedora-security-guide could provide a fedora-security-guide-11 package for F11, etc, allowing parallel install. As I see it though there should only be one base package in Fedora and it should be named fedora-security-guide (going by the current submission). How fedora-security-guide.spec gets created is not really Fedora's problem. Publican spec files are not that hard to write and could easily be scripted, if publican can't do the Right Thing for Fedora packaging. I see parallel installation as a corner-case and not something Fedora needs go out of its way to support: IMHO most users would only want the latest version of the guide installed - are the changes in security between Fedora releases really that big? But if the Fedora Packaging Committee can be persuaded that we need an exception for Publican or approves packaging guidelines for publican packages that would be fine. -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 --- Comment #53 from Michael Hideo mhi...@redhat.com 2009-03-12 20:18:29 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=335032) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=335032) Fedora Platform as Base for Open Source Documentation Hi Jens, Looking outside of the current distro we are working on, the attached screenshot demonstrates the capabilities of this naming tracking system that uses Fedora as a platform development library. Does this make sense? Constraining to a single rpm for a single version for a single release does not afford flexibility of choice. Let me know if I am way off into the wild woods. - Mike -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 --- Comment #54 from Michael Hideo mhi...@redhat.com 2009-03-12 21:47:50 EDT --- Hi Jens, Yes I see now I am off in the wild woods. I see now how the .spec file is the point in time where the upstream meets the distro. Using the technology we have today, if we were to create a documentation policy that mapped VER to the release version of the software we are documenting I think we would be in good shape. For example: Turning this: fedora-Security_Guide-10-en-US-1-12.fc10.noarch Into: fedora-Security_Guide-en-US-10-12.fc10.noarch I think I got it in my head. Would that work? - Mike -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 --- Comment #55 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2009-03-12 22:27:13 EDT --- Turning this: fedora-Security_Guide-10-en-US-1-12.fc10.noarch Into: fedora-Security_Guide-en-US-10-12.fc10.noarch I think I got it in my head. Would that work? Sounds good to me. :-) -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 --- Comment #50 from Michael Hideo mhi...@redhat.com 2009-03-12 00:40:02 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=334897) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=334897) Using Fedora Versioned RPM Names Afford Functionality Jens, Attached is a screenshot of a practical use case where we are using installing different versions of the fedora security guide on the same distro. By having separate Fedora versioned packages, system administrators can read and perform specific fedora release procedures. This saves them from having to install the Security Guide package on 3 different instances of Fedora. Does this make sense? - Mike -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 --- Comment #48 from Eric Christensen e...@christensenplace.us 2009-02-16 09:55:37 EDT --- Of course, and it will until a major rewrite of Publican occurs. Apparently this is how all RH Publican packages appear. -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 --- Comment #49 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2009-02-16 22:41:52 EDT --- Erm, I have a sense of deja vu... so what are you proposing to call the package again? -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 --- Comment #47 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2009-02-16 00:57:24 EDT --- I don't want to say but the version number is back in the file names again... -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 --- Comment #46 from Eric Christensen e...@christensenplace.us 2009-02-11 10:07:43 EDT --- SPEC: http://sparks.fedorapeople.org/fedora-security-guide-11-en-US.spec SRPM: http://sparks.fedorapeople.org/fedora-security-guide-11-en-US-1.0-12.fc10.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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 --- Comment #45 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2009-02-04 04:02:59 EDT --- If you have new urls, please post them here. -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 Bug 476471 depends on bug 482972, which changed state. Bug 482972 Summary: .desktop file not created https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=482972 What|Old Value |New Value Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|WONTFIX | -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471
--- Comment #42 from Eric Christensen e...@christensenplace.us 2009-01-29
08:48:45 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #41)
Well, it looks something like this in the code:
%if %{HTMLVIEW}
Requires: htmlview
%else
Requires: xdg-utils
%endif
(In reply to comment #38)
Apparently the .desktop file is retarded stuff and won't be fixed. I'm not
sure what information goes into the file so I can't build one myself. Will
need some help with this one.
--
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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 --- Comment #43 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2009-01-29 22:10:35 EDT --- The point I was trying to get at is that you have the conditional but then the desktop file just uses htmlview anyway. ;-) I suggest starting by copying the .desktop to a file (Source1) and including that in the srpm. -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 --- Comment #44 from Eric Christensen e...@christensenplace.us 2009-01-29 22:39:15 EDT --- (In reply to comment #43) The point I was trying to get at is that you have the conditional but then the desktop file just uses htmlview anyway. ;-) Yeah, I'm not sure why it is in there but it might be another feature that I'd have to break. Doesn't look like it is going to hurt anything. I suggest starting by copying the .desktop to a file (Source1) and including that in the srpm. Oh! Okay, that's been done and the source tgz has been uploaded. -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 Eric Christensen e...@christensenplace.us changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||482968 -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 --- Comment #40 from Eric Christensen e...@christensenplace.us 2009-01-28 22:55:45 EDT --- (In reply to comment #38) I have filed a bug against Publican for the Source0 entry (482968). I cannot hard code this in as I previously though. Am also trying to figure out how to populate the .desktop file with the proper options as I know it shows up on the computer with the proper icons and such. Will file a bug if I can't figure it out. (In reply to comment #39) I can hard code the htmlview only but it would most likely break functionality in Publican later. Is this a hard requirement? It doesn't appear to hurt the package as it is an if statement. -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 Eric Christensen e...@christensenplace.us changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||482972 -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 Bug 476471 depends on bug 482972, which changed state. Bug 482972 Summary: .desktop file not created https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=482972 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 Bug 476471 depends on bug 482968, which changed state. Bug 482968 Summary: Source0 missing from SPEC file https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=482968 What|Old Value |New Value 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 --- Comment #41 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2009-01-29 02:31:04 EDT --- (In reply to comment #39) I can hard code the htmlview only but it would most likely break functionality in Publican later. Is this a hard requirement? It doesn't appear to hurt the package as it is an if statement. You mean the conditional stuff - yeah we can probably live with that if we are proceeding with pure publican generated spec files. But htmlview vs xdg-utils stuff should be fully conditionalized not partly like now. -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 --- Comment #37 from Eric Christensen e...@christensenplace.us 2009-01-27 19:10:50 EDT --- Okay, lots of work today. Fixed the code (at least on my end) to remove the %PRODUCTNUMBER from the SPEC which also removes it from the package name. Here are links to the latest and greatest: SPEC URL: http://sparks.fedorapeople.org/fedora-security-guide-en-US.spec SRPM URL: http://sparks.fedorapeople.org/fedora-security-guide-en-US-1.0-10.fc10.src.rpm Verified to be clean with rpmlint. -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|peter...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #38 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2009-01-27 23:11:02 EDT --- Thanks. Koji scratch build is successful: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1087751 I can sponsor you, Chris, based on a successful completion of this review. :) You still need to address some earlier comments though: (In reply to comment #1) - 'Source0:' should point to the upstream source location, if possible. - About the .desktop file. The guidelines says that it should be include as 'SourceX:' https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Desktop_files See 'desktop-file-install usage' for details about the installation of this file. Get in touch with upstream and ask them to include the .desktop file. (In reply to comment #4) - URL should be https://fedorahosted.org/securityguide/ - Source0 should be point to the upstream source location, to the source tarball to be more precise. Please refer to https://fedorahosted.org/web/faq, Section 'How can I publish archive releases (tgz, zip, etc) for my project?' -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 --- Comment #39 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2009-01-27 23:23:24 EDT --- I guess since this is Fedora only, all the htmlview stuff is not needed in the spec file and the desktop file should use xdg-open. -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 --- Comment #36 from Eric Christensen e...@christensenplace.us 2009-01-20 08:19:57 EDT --- (In reply to comment #35) Yep, the version number in the package name itself is bad... ie the -11 part in the Name field: Okay, consider the -11 gone. SPEC URL: http://sparks.fedorapeople.org/fedora-security-guide-en-US.spec SRPM URL: http://sparks.fedorapeople.org/fedora-security-guide-en-US-1.0-7.fc10.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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 --- Comment #32 from Eric Christensen e...@christensenplace.us 2009-01-19 21:44:36 EDT --- Updated the files... Builds clean, still. SPEC URL: http://sparks.fedorapeople.org/fedora-security-guide-11-en-US.spec SRPM URL: http://sparks.fedorapeople.org/fedora-security-guide-11-en-US-1.0-7.fc10.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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 --- Comment #33 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2009-01-19 22:33:38 EDT --- The package name still contains the version number which is bad. How about fedora-security-guide-en-US-11-7.fc10 ? -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 --- Comment #34 from Eric Christensen e...@christensenplace.us 2009-01-19 23:00:49 EDT --- (In reply to comment #33) The package name still contains the version number which is bad. How about fedora-security-guide-en-US-11-7.fc10 ? At the risk of sounding dumb... Why are version numbers bad? If anything the 11 is something I don't like but the version 1.0-7 seems like a really good idea. I've already filed a ticket against the 11 part (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478950) but not sure where that is. I can manually remove it from the package if that makes everything right. -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 --- Comment #35 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2009-01-20 02:19:05 EDT --- At the risk of sounding dumb... Why are version numbers bad? If anything the 11 is something I don't like but the version 1.0-7 seems like a really good idea. Yep, the version number in the package name itself is bad... ie the -11 part in the Name field: Name: fedora-security-guide-11-en-US This has already come up several times in the review. Source (base) package names are stable in fedora over releases. (I am happy to discuss the packaging on irc if I can make things clearer.) I can manually remove it from the package if that makes everything right. That would help. -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 --- Comment #31 from Eric Christensen e...@christensenplace.us 2009-01-16 15:00:47 EDT --- Okay, I'm getting excited now. Thanks to the new version of publican I now have an SRPM and a SPEC file that look good (I think) and the rpmbuild passes the rpmlint test. SPEC URL: http://sparks.fedorapeople.org/fedora-security-guide-11-en-US.spec SRPM URL: http://sparks.fedorapeople.org/fedora-security-guide-11-en-US-1.0-6.fc10.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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for Linux
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=476471 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |fedora-Linux_Security_Guide |fedora-security-guide - A |- A security guide for |security guide for Linux |linux | -- 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
