[Bug 809114] Review Request: novacomd - Utility to connect to WebOS devices
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=809114 --- Comment #8 from Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com 2012-04-11 11:17:09 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) Ok, which brings me back to the original question. As the most common scenario is to have both server and client on the same machine, should we have novacom-server, novacom-client and novacom which brings in both? Sorry for this late answer. The scheme you suggest is OK for me: renaming your current novacomd package to novacom-server, the novacom package to novacom-client; the empty novacom package can be set as a subpackage of novacom-client. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809114] Review Request: novacomd - Utility to connect to WebOS devices
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=809114 Jacek Pliszka jacek.plis...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jacek.plis...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Jacek Pliszka jacek.plis...@gmail.com 2012-04-04 04:44:28 EDT --- I would be against splitting into several packages. There are few files and the size is small. If you also could include icon and .desktop file for novaterm. Something like: [Desktop Entry] Version=1.0 Name=Novaterm Comment=Novaterm for command line access to WebOS device Exec=/home/pliszka/palm/novacom/novaterm Icon=/home/pliszka/icons/Palm_logo_2003.svg Terminal=true Type=Application Categories=Own; -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809114] Review Request: novacomd - Utility to connect to WebOS devices
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=809114 Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com 2012-04-04 05:53:19 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) - %clean section, as well as buildroot cleaning in %install and the BuildRoot tag, is useless too: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag I'll probably leave this in as I'd like to build this for EPEL-5 It's OK :) Novacom is a separate review (as they have separate upstreams) and is available at bug 809116. I will review it too. I have wondered whether it would make sense to package novacomd as novacom-server, novacom as novacom-client and have a metapackage, novacom, that installs both. What do you think? I'd let the original names for each package, as recommended by the guidelines, and add a Requires on novacomd in the novacom package, since the client cannot work without the service. If novacom and novacomd were available from the same source, I'd even package it as a single RPM. (In reply to comment #3) If you also could include icon and .desktop file for novaterm. Something like: [Desktop Entry] Version=1.0 Name=Novaterm Comment=Novaterm for command line access to WebOS device Exec=/home/pliszka/palm/novacom/novaterm Icon=/home/pliszka/icons/Palm_logo_2003.svg Terminal=true Type=Application Categories=Own; This comment is rather relative to the novacom package. I don't think providing a desktop file for novaterm is worthy since novacom is clearly described as a set of command-line tools. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809114] Review Request: novacomd - Utility to connect to WebOS devices
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=809114 Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pikachu.2...@gmail.com -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809114] Review Request: novacomd - Utility to connect to WebOS devices
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=809114 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Dieter jdie...@lesbg.com 2012-04-04 06:06:44 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) (In reply to comment #2) I have wondered whether it would make sense to package novacomd as novacom-server, novacom as novacom-client and have a metapackage, novacom, that installs both. What do you think? I'd let the original names for each package, as recommended by the guidelines, and add a Requires on novacomd in the novacom package, since the client cannot work without the service. Novacom can actually connect to a novacomd server on a different machine, which is why I'd prefer not to have a hard requires on novacomd. Having said that, if you feel strongly about it, we can do the hard requires. If novacom and novacomd were available from the same source, I'd even package it as a single RPM. ACK. It would make life *way* easier, but, unfortunately, HP has seen fit to release them as two separate sources. (In reply to comment #3) If you also could include icon and .desktop file for novaterm. Something like: [Desktop Entry] Version=1.0 Name=Novaterm Comment=Novaterm for command line access to WebOS device Exec=/home/pliszka/palm/novacom/novaterm Icon=/home/pliszka/icons/Palm_logo_2003.svg Terminal=true Type=Application Categories=Own; This comment is rather relative to the novacom package. I don't think providing a desktop file for novaterm is worthy since novacom is clearly described as a set of command-line tools. +1 -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809114] Review Request: novacomd - Utility to connect to WebOS devices
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=809114 --- Comment #6 from Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com 2012-04-04 06:16:13 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) (In reply to comment #4) (In reply to comment #2) I have wondered whether it would make sense to package novacomd as novacom-server, novacom as novacom-client and have a metapackage, novacom, that installs both. What do you think? I'd let the original names for each package, as recommended by the guidelines, and add a Requires on novacomd in the novacom package, since the client cannot work without the service. Novacom can actually connect to a novacomd server on a different machine, which is why I'd prefer not to have a hard requires on novacomd. Having said that, if you feel strongly about it, we can do the hard requires. I've just discover the remote connection options for novacomd... And it works ^^. So you're right, it's useless to force such a Requires. Forget about my comment on novacom too, then. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809114] Review Request: novacomd - Utility to connect to WebOS devices
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=809114 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Dieter jdie...@lesbg.com 2012-04-04 06:20:58 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) (In reply to comment #5) (In reply to comment #4) (In reply to comment #2) I have wondered whether it would make sense to package novacomd as novacom-server, novacom as novacom-client and have a metapackage, novacom, that installs both. What do you think? I'd let the original names for each package, as recommended by the guidelines, and add a Requires on novacomd in the novacom package, since the client cannot work without the service. Novacom can actually connect to a novacomd server on a different machine, which is why I'd prefer not to have a hard requires on novacomd. Having said that, if you feel strongly about it, we can do the hard requires. I've just discover the remote connection options for novacomd... And it works ^^. So you're right, it's useless to force such a Requires. Forget about my comment on novacom too, then. Ok, which brings me back to the original question. As the most common scenario is to have both server and client on the same machine, should we have novacom-server, novacom-client and novacom which brings in both? -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809114] Review Request: novacomd - Utility to connect to WebOS devices
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=809114 Jonathan Dieter jdie...@lesbg.com changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com ||/show_bug.cgi?id=809116 -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809114] Review Request: novacomd - Utility to connect to WebOS devices
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=809114 Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pikachu.2...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com 2012-04-02 10:22:41 EDT --- I'd be glad to review it, since I'm having a WebOS device. Just some comments: - %defattr in %files is useless now: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions - %clean section, as well as buildroot cleaning in %install and the BuildRoot tag, is useless too: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag - it looks like the sources provide an Upstart service file. This service was also available in the binary packages delivered by HP: https://developer.palm.com/content/resources/develop/sdk_pdk_download.html#linux I think you should write a very simple Systemd file to launch novacomd at startup for this 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809114] Review Request: novacomd - Utility to connect to WebOS devices
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=809114 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Dieter jdie...@lesbg.com 2012-04-02 11:30:59 EDT --- Thanks much for your willingness to review. Comments inline. (In reply to comment #1) I'd be glad to review it, since I'm having a WebOS device. Just some comments: - %defattr in %files is useless now: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions Ok, will fix in next revision. - %clean section, as well as buildroot cleaning in %install and the BuildRoot tag, is useless too: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag I'll probably leave this in as I'd like to build this for EPEL-5 - it looks like the sources provide an Upstart service file. This service was also available in the binary packages delivered by HP: https://developer.palm.com/content/resources/develop/sdk_pdk_download.html#linux I think you should write a very simple Systemd file to launch novacomd at startup for this package. That's a very good idea, though I was wondering about possibly setting up socket activation for novacomd. Novacom is a separate review (as they have separate upstreams) and is available at bug 809116. I have wondered whether it would make sense to package novacomd as novacom-server, novacom as novacom-client and have a metapackage, novacom, that installs both. What do you 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
