[Bug 1896368] Review Request: ntpsec - NTP daemon and utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1896368 Miroslav Lichvar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2021-01-06 15:40:07 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1896368] Review Request: ntpsec - NTP daemon and utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1896368 Miroslav Lichvar changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(mlichvar@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #9 from Miroslav Lichvar --- No help needed, thanks. I just need to make few more changes before the first build to follow the F34 "ntp replacement" change, e.g. migration of the ntpd service state. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1896368] Review Request: ntpsec - NTP daemon and utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1896368 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(mlichvar@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #8 from Andy Mender --- I saw the repository was created, but no packages pushed yet. Do you need any help? :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1896368] Review Request: ntpsec - NTP daemon and utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1896368 --- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ntpsec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1896368] Review Request: ntpsec - NTP daemon and utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1896368 --- Comment #6 from Miroslav Lichvar --- Thanks! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1896368] Review Request: ntpsec - NTP daemon and utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1896368 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Andy Mender --- > As this is not a full replacement of ntp, I think it would be incorrect to > provide "ntp". Yes, you're right. > I've added a logrotate file and owned the directory to avoid a hard > dependency on logrotate, as there should be no logs generated in the default > configuration. Good idea. That makes more sense. Everything in order. Package approved! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1896368] Review Request: ntpsec - NTP daemon and utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1896368
--- Comment #4 from Miroslav Lichvar ---
Here is fixed spec and srpm:
https://fedorapeople.org/~mlichvar/tmp/ntpsec.spec
https://fedorapeople.org/~mlichvar/tmp/ntpsec-1.2.0-2.fc34.src.rpm
(In reply to Andy Mender from comment #2)
> > Conflicts: ntp ntpdate
> > Obsoletes: ntp < 4.2.8p16 ntpdate < 4.2.8p16
>
> Would it make sense to also add a Provides entry to the SPEC file?
As this is not a full replacement of ntp, I think it would be incorrect to
provide "ntp".
> > # Fix egg info to use a shorter version which will work as an rpm provide
> > sed -i 's|NTPSEC_VERSION_EXTENDED|NTPSEC_VERSION|' pylib/ntp-in.egg-info
> > [...]
> > # Modify default configuration
> > sed -i -e '/^pool .*pool\.ntp\.org/s|[^ ]*pool.ntp.org|2.%{vendorzone}\0|' \
> > -e '/^pool /a # Reduce the number of used servers\ntos maxclock 5' \
> > -e '/^pool /G' \
> > etc/ntp.d/use-pool
> > sed -i '/^logfile/d' etc/ntp.d/use-performance-logging
>
> Are these changes relevant only to the Fedora package or would it make sense
> to submit them upstream as patches?
The pool vendor name is downstream specific. I've submitted an upstream PR for
the maxclock line.
> ntpsec.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ntp/libntpc.so
> Review: Do we want a -devel subpackage or is this SO file for internal use
> only?
It is for ntpsec's internal use. There are no header files installed.
> ntpsec.x86_64: W: log-files-without-logrotate ['/var/log/ntpstats']
> Review: Missing Requires on logrotate?
I've added a logrotate file and owned the directory to avoid a hard dependency
on logrotate, as there should be no logs generated in the default
configuration.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1896368] Review Request: ntpsec - NTP daemon and utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1896368 --- Comment #3 from Miroslav Lichvar --- Thanks for the review. I'll see if I can fix the issues and post a new spec. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1896368] Review Request: ntpsec - NTP daemon and utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1896368
--- Comment #2 from Andy Mender ---
Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=55631726
> License:MIT and BSD and BSD with advertising
Please, indicate which bits of the package use which license in a comment above
this line if possible.
Also, licensecheck found the ISC license which should probably be added to this
line:
ISC License
---
ntpsec-1.2.0/libntp/emalloc.c
> BuildRequires: libcap-devel openssl-devel pps-tools-devel python3-devel
> BuildRequires: bison gcc gnupg2 m4 rubygem-asciidoctor systemd waf
Split these into individual lines and sort alphabetically for better
readability.
> Conflicts: ntp ntpdate
> Obsoletes: ntp < 4.2.8p16 ntpdate < 4.2.8p16
Would it make sense to also add a Provides entry to the SPEC file?
> # Fix egg info to use a shorter version which will work as an rpm provide
> sed -i 's|NTPSEC_VERSION_EXTENDED|NTPSEC_VERSION|' pylib/ntp-in.egg-info
> [...]
> # Modify default configuration
> sed -i -e '/^pool .*pool\.ntp\.org/s|[^ ]*pool.ntp.org|2.%{vendorzone}\0|' \
> -e '/^pool /a # Reduce the number of used servers\ntos maxclock 5' \
> -e '/^pool /G' \
> etc/ntp.d/use-pool
> sed -i '/^logfile/d' etc/ntp.d/use-performance-logging
Are these changes relevant only to the Fedora package or would it make sense to
submit them upstream as patches?
> %{_sbindir}/ntpd
> %{_libdir}/ntp/libntpc.so*
The package should also own "%{_libdir}/ntp/".
Full review below. Please, have a look at the inlined comments:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "NTP License BSD 2-clause "Simplified"
License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License",
"*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "*No copyright* NTP
License", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Expat License", "*No
copyright* Expat License", "ISC License". 663 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/data/rpmbuild/SPECS/ntpsec/ntpsec/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/ntp
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/ntp
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are
[Bug 1896368] Review Request: ntpsec - NTP daemon and utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1896368 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||andymenderu...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|andymenderu...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1896368] Review Request: ntpsec - NTP daemon and utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1896368 --- Comment #1 from Miroslav Lichvar --- This is meant to replace the ntp package as discussed here: https://www.mail-archive.com/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/msg159447.html -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
