[Bug 1386938] Review Request: libprelude - Prelude Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1386938

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1412128




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1412128
[Bug 1412128] Review Request: libpreludedb - Prelude DB Library
-- 
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

[Bug 1386938] Review Request: libprelude - Prelude Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1386938

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2017-01-07 19:18:34



--- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System  ---
libprelude-3.1.0-26.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

-- 
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

[Bug 1386938] Review Request: libprelude - Prelude Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1386938

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System  ---
libprelude-3.1.0-26.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-0ccc77adf2

-- 
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

[Bug 1386938] Review Request: libprelude - Prelude Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1386938

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |MODIFIED



-- 
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

[Bug 1386938] Review Request: libprelude - Prelude Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1386938



--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System  ---
libprelude-3.1.0-26.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-0ccc77adf2

-- 
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

[Bug 1386938] Review Request: libprelude - Prelude Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1386938



--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System  ---
libprelude-3.1.0-26.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

-- 
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

[Bug 1386938] Review Request: libprelude - Prelude Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1386938



--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System  ---
libprelude-3.1.0-26.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

-- 
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

[Bug 1386938] Review Request: libprelude - Prelude Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1386938



--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System  ---
libprelude-3.1.0-26.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3fe04fb903

-- 
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

[Bug 1386938] Review Request: libprelude - Prelude Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1386938

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System  ---
libprelude-3.1.0-26.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-6e12f43ea4

-- 
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

[Bug 1386938] Review Request: libprelude - Prelude Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1386938

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|MODIFIED



-- 
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

[Bug 1386938] Review Request: libprelude - Prelude Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1386938



--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System  ---
libprelude-3.1.0-26.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3fe04fb903

-- 
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

[Bug 1386938] Review Request: libprelude - Prelude Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1386938



--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System  ---
libprelude-3.1.0-26.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-6e12f43ea4

-- 
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

[Bug 1386938] Review Request: libprelude - Prelude Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1386938

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|POST
 Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #19 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
fedora-review says:

- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
  Note: warning: File listed twice:
  /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Prelude/Prelude.so
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles

(Use "%dir %{perl_vendorarch}/auto/Prelude")

fedora-review has some other complaints, but they are invalid afaict.

Rpmlint
---
Checking: libprelude-3.1.0-26.fc26.x86_64.rpm
  libprelude-devel-3.1.0-26.fc26.x86_64.rpm
  prelude-tools-3.1.0-26.fc26.x86_64.rpm
  python2-prelude-3.1.0-26.fc26.x86_64.rpm
  python3-prelude-3.1.0-26.fc26.x86_64.rpm
  perl-prelude-3.1.0-26.fc26.x86_64.rpm
  ruby-prelude-3.1.0-26.fc26.x86_64.rpm
  lua-prelude-3.1.0-26.fc26.x86_64.rpm
  libprelude-doc-3.1.0-26.fc26.noarch.rpm
  libprelude-debuginfo-3.1.0-26.fc26.x86_64.rpm
  libprelude-3.1.0-26.fc26.src.rpm
libprelude.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-gnutls-2
/usr/lib64/libprelude.so.23.3.0 gnutls_priority_init
prelude-tools.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-gnutls-1
/usr/bin/prelude-admin gnutls_priority_set_direct
This is probably a bug in the rpmlint checker.

libprelude-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
prelude-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libprelude -> lib
prelude, lib-prelude, prelude
prelude-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary prelude-adduser
python2-prelude.x86_64: W: no-documentation
python3-prelude.x86_64: W: no-documentation
perl-prelude.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ruby-prelude.x86_64: W: no-documentation
lua-prelude.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libprelude-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gtk -> gt, gt k
11 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings.

All OK.

+ package name is OK
+ license is ACCEPTABLE (various variants of GPL)
- license is specified correctly (see below)
+ builds and installs OK
+ P/R/BR look correct
+ scriptlets look OK
+ %check is present and passes

The license tag is not correct though: the license tag applies to the *binary*
rpms
[https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ?rd=Licensing/FAQ#Does_the_License:_tag_cover_the_SRPM_or_the_binary_RPM.3F,
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ?rd=Licensing/FAQ#What_is_.22effective_license.22_and_do_I_need_to_know_that_for_the_License:_tag.3F].
In this case:
# libmissing is LGPL-2.1+ → built as part of the final product, compatible with
GPL
# libmissing/test is GPL-3.0+ → can be ignored, because this is not distributed
as part of the binary rpm
# Prelude is GPL-2.0+ → This is the effective license

Build fails in koji:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16709324, on arm64 this
time.
The error doesn't look to bad, but it's most likely an upstream issue,
so I think it's fine if you use ExcludeArch until it's fixed.

prelude-log.c: In function 'do_log_v':
prelude-log.c:51:50: error: incompatible type for argument 1 of 'memmove'
 #  define PRELUDE_VA_COPY(ap1, ap2) memmove ((ap1), (ap2),
sizeof(va_list))
  ^
prelude-log.c:229:9: note: in expansion of macro 'PRELUDE_VA_COPY'
 PRELUDE_VA_COPY(bkp, ap);
 ^~~
In file included from /usr/include/features.h:397:0,
 from /usr/include/sys/types.h:25,
 from ../libmissing/sys/types.h:28,
 from ../libmissing/ftw_.h:20,
 from ./include/libmissing.h:34,
 from prelude-log.c:24:
/usr/include/bits/string3.h:57:1: note: expected 'void *' but argument is of
type 'va_list {aka __va_list}'
 __NTH (memmove (void *__dest, const void *__src, size_t __len))
 ^
prelude-log.c:51:57: error: incompatible type for argument 2 of 'memmove'
 #  define PRELUDE_VA_COPY(ap1, ap2) memmove ((ap1), (ap2),
sizeof(va_list))
 ^
prelude-log.c:229:9: note: in expansion of macro 'PRELUDE_VA_COPY'
 PRELUDE_VA_COPY(bkp, ap);
 ^~~
In file included from /usr/include/features.h:397:0,
 from /usr/include/sys/types.h:25,
 from ../libmissing/sys/types.h:28,
 from ../libmissing/ftw_.h:20,
 from ./include/libmissing.h:34,
 from prelude-log.c:24:
/usr/include/bits/string3.h:57:1: note: expected 'const void *' but argument is
of type 'va_list {aka __va_list}'
 __NTH (memmove (void *__dest, const void *__src, size_t __len))
 ^

OK, so we have two 

[Bug 1386938] Review Request: libprelude - Prelude Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1386938



--- Comment #18 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
*** Bug 1380180 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

-- 
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

[Bug 1386938] Review Request: libprelude - Prelude Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1386938



--- Comment #17 from Thomas Andrejak  ---
New spec : https://www.prelude-siem.org/pkg/src/3.1.0/libprelude.spec
New srpm :
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/totol/Prelude/fedora-26-x86_64/00483991-libprelude/libprelude-3.1.0-26.fc26.src.rpm

(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #15)
> (In reply to Thomas Andrejak from comment #13)
> > (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #12)
> > > libprelude.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-gnutls-2
> > > /usr/lib64/libprelude.so.23.3.0 gnutls_priority_init
> > > prelude-tools.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-gnutls-1
> > > /usr/bin/prelude-admin gnutls_priority_set_direct
> > > 
> > > This one is a bigger problem. It's been a while since I looked at the
> > > details, but basically you need to call gnutls_set_default_priority or 
> > > gnutls_priority_set_direct("@SYSTEM")
> > > [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:CryptoPolicies]. If this policy
> > > does not apply to this package for some reason, please explain in a 
> > > comment
> > > in the spec file. Looking at ./prelude-admin/server.c, it should be easy
> > > enough to patch.
> > 
> > Done. I explain in the spec why it is OK for libprelude.so. For
> > prelude-admin, I made a patch to use what is required in the Wiki but I
> > still have the warning
> 
> > # - crypto-policy-non-compliance-gnutls-2 in libprelude.so is normal
> > #   because the user can configure it
> 
> That's the only important issue. While it is true that the value
> can be overridden, most users of the library will not override the
> default, so the "default" provided by the library is what will be
> used most often in the end. IIUC, libprelude.so has
> tls_auth_init_priority() which calls gnutls_priority_init(tlsopts ?:
> "NORMAL"),
> and tls_auth_init_priority() is called in a few places as 
> tls_auth_init_priority(NULL), e.g. from tls_auth_connection().
> So effectively "NORMAL" is the default. I think it should be changed
> to "@SYSTEM".
> 
> For a similar case, consider libmicrohttpd. We patched it
> [http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/libmicrohttpd.git/tree/gnutls-
> utilize-system-crypto-policy.patch]
> to use @SYSTEM, and all users of libmicrohttpd magically became
> compliant with the policy without any further work.

I fixed it but I still get the warning, dunno why ...

> 
> > > # Force default attrs because libprelude force others
> > > %defattr(- , root, root, 755)
> > > → I think you don't need this anymore.
> > 
> > => Just try it, I still need this
> 
> > > - Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
> > >   Note: Bundled gnulib but no Provides: bundled(gnulib)
> > >   See:
> > >  
> > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:
> > > No_Bundled_Libraries#Requirement_if_you_bundle
> > 
> > Done
> 
> Note: it'd be nicer to include a specific "version", something like
> Provides: bundled(gnulib) = 20160508
> but if it's hard to determine or unclear or whatever, it's fine as is.

Done

> 
> > > rpmlint also says:
> > > libprelude-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> > > /usr/src/debug/libprelude-3.1.0/src/libprelude-error/code-to-errno.h
> > > libprelude-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> > > /usr/src/debug/libprelude-3.1.0/src/libprelude-error/err-sources.h
> > > libprelude-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> > > /usr/src/debug/libprelude-3.1.0/src/libprelude-error/strsource.c
> > > libprelude-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> > > /usr/src/debug/libprelude-3.1.0/src/libprelude-error/code-from-errno.h
> > > libprelude-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> > > /usr/src/debug/libprelude-3.1.0/src/libprelude-error/err-codes.h
> > > libprelude-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> > > /usr/src/debug/libprelude-3.1.0/src/libprelude-error/strerror.c
> > > It's not a big issue, but probably to fix upstream at some point.
> > 
> > I can't change this, this is not part of libprelude
> 
> Those same files in libgpg-error sources are quite different. It seems that
> libprelude has an independent forked copy, so you *could* fix the address.
> But anyway, it doesn't matter much.

Done

> 
> I noticed another issue: valgrind is used in tests, but is not listed in
> BuildRequires. Unfortunately, valgrind is not available on all architectures.
> There's a macro %{valgrind_arches}, but it is only available in rawhide.
> That could be used in the future, but for now:
> %ifnarch s390
> BuildRequires: valgrind
> %endif
> ... and you also have to make sure that the test still run without valgrind.

I have to check this but it should works

> 
> >> And one more suggestion for upstream reconsideration:
> >> custom autoconf macros are horrible.
> > Interesting, I will share this with upstream
> Oh, I now see that there's a pkg-config file already. So my rant wasn't
> necessary. Sorry.

Don't worry ;)

> Scratch build in koji: 

[Bug 1386938] Review Request: libprelude - Prelude Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1386938



--- Comment #16 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
Scratch build in koji:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16660708
(koji build  --scratch rawhide libprelude-3.1.0-26.fc26.src.rpm)

Tests fail on ppc64 ;(

-- 
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

[Bug 1386938] Review Request: libprelude - Prelude Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1386938



--- Comment #15 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
(In reply to Thomas Andrejak from comment #13)
> (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #12)
> > libprelude.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-gnutls-2
> > /usr/lib64/libprelude.so.23.3.0 gnutls_priority_init
> > prelude-tools.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-gnutls-1
> > /usr/bin/prelude-admin gnutls_priority_set_direct
> > 
> > This one is a bigger problem. It's been a while since I looked at the
> > details, but basically you need to call gnutls_set_default_priority or 
> > gnutls_priority_set_direct("@SYSTEM")
> > [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:CryptoPolicies]. If this policy
> > does not apply to this package for some reason, please explain in a comment
> > in the spec file. Looking at ./prelude-admin/server.c, it should be easy
> > enough to patch.
> 
> Done. I explain in the spec why it is OK for libprelude.so. For
> prelude-admin, I made a patch to use what is required in the Wiki but I
> still have the warning

> # - crypto-policy-non-compliance-gnutls-2 in libprelude.so is normal
> #   because the user can configure it

That's the only important issue. While it is true that the value
can be overridden, most users of the library will not override the
default, so the "default" provided by the library is what will be
used most often in the end. IIUC, libprelude.so has
tls_auth_init_priority() which calls gnutls_priority_init(tlsopts ?: "NORMAL"),
and tls_auth_init_priority() is called in a few places as 
tls_auth_init_priority(NULL), e.g. from tls_auth_connection().
So effectively "NORMAL" is the default. I think it should be changed
to "@SYSTEM".

For a similar case, consider libmicrohttpd. We patched it
[http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/libmicrohttpd.git/tree/gnutls-utilize-system-crypto-policy.patch]
to use @SYSTEM, and all users of libmicrohttpd magically became
compliant with the policy without any further work.

> > # Force default attrs because libprelude force others
> > %defattr(- , root, root, 755)
> > → I think you don't need this anymore.
> 
> => Just try it, I still need this

> > - Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
> >   Note: Bundled gnulib but no Provides: bundled(gnulib)
> >   See:
> >  
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:
> > No_Bundled_Libraries#Requirement_if_you_bundle
> 
> Done

Note: it'd be nicer to include a specific "version", something like
Provides: bundled(gnulib) = 20160508
but if it's hard to determine or unclear or whatever, it's fine as is.

> > rpmlint also says:
> > libprelude-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> > /usr/src/debug/libprelude-3.1.0/src/libprelude-error/code-to-errno.h
> > libprelude-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> > /usr/src/debug/libprelude-3.1.0/src/libprelude-error/err-sources.h
> > libprelude-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> > /usr/src/debug/libprelude-3.1.0/src/libprelude-error/strsource.c
> > libprelude-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> > /usr/src/debug/libprelude-3.1.0/src/libprelude-error/code-from-errno.h
> > libprelude-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> > /usr/src/debug/libprelude-3.1.0/src/libprelude-error/err-codes.h
> > libprelude-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> > /usr/src/debug/libprelude-3.1.0/src/libprelude-error/strerror.c
> > It's not a big issue, but probably to fix upstream at some point.
> 
> I can't change this, this is not part of libprelude

Those same files in libgpg-error sources are quite different. It seems that
libprelude has an independent forked copy, so you *could* fix the address.
But anyway, it doesn't matter much.

I noticed another issue: valgrind is used in tests, but is not listed in
BuildRequires. Unfortunately, valgrind is not available on all architectures.
There's a macro %{valgrind_arches}, but it is only available in rawhide.
That could be used in the future, but for now:
%ifnarch s390
BuildRequires: valgrind
%endif
... and you also have to make sure that the test still run without valgrind.

>> And one more suggestion for upstream reconsideration:
>> custom autoconf macros are horrible.
> Interesting, I will share this with upstream
Oh, I now see that there's a pkg-config file already. So my rant wasn't
necessary. Sorry.

-- 
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

[Bug 1386938] Review Request: libprelude - Prelude Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1386938



--- Comment #14 from Thomas Andrejak  ---
Here are the new files

spec : https://www.prelude-siem.org/pkg/src/3.1.0/libprelude.spec

srpm :
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/totol/Prelude/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00481802-libprelude/libprelude-3.1.0-26.fc26.src.rpm

-- 
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

[Bug 1386938] Review Request: libprelude - Prelude Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1386938



--- Comment #13 from Thomas Andrejak  ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #12)
> # Force default attrs because libprelude force others
> %defattr(- , root, root, 755)
> → I think you don't need this anymore.

=> Just try it, I still need this

> 
> %{python3_sitearch}/_prelude.*so
> %{python3_sitearch}/prelude.py
> → Not a packaging issue, but still something to reconsider upstream. I think
> putting a private module at the top level is rather ugly. Imaging the mess
> if everybody did that ;). Why not structure this as
> %{python3_sitearch}/prelude/__init__.py
> %{python3_sitearch}/prelude/_prelude.*so
> ? (Please note that I'm just complaining here, this review is not contingent
> on this in any way.)

Good point, I will put this upstream

> 
> BR: perl-generators is needed according to
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl#Build_Dependencies,
> and also R: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT), see
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:
> Perl#Versioned_MODULE_COMPAT_Requires.

Done

> 
> - Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
>   Note: Bundled gnulib but no Provides: bundled(gnulib)
>   See:
>  
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:
> No_Bundled_Libraries#Requirement_if_you_bundle

Done

> 
> - Note: License file LICENSE.README is not marked as %license
> Yeah, it seems reasonable to include that in %license too.
> Same goes for HACKING.README.

Done

> 
> - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
>   (~1MB) or number of files.
>   Note: Documentation size is 5703680 bytes in 53 files.
>   See:
>   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation
> 
> I'm not sure how exactly fedora-review arrives at this number, but it seems
> that there's indeed a few MBs of documentation. You might want to split out
> libprelude-doc subpackage with /usr/share/doc/libprelude-devel/libprelude.
> (Also not that there's an extra level of directories nesting here that looks
> accidental.)

Done

> 
> rpmlint also says:
> libprelude-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> /usr/src/debug/libprelude-3.1.0/src/libprelude-error/code-to-errno.h
> libprelude-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> /usr/src/debug/libprelude-3.1.0/src/libprelude-error/err-sources.h
> libprelude-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> /usr/src/debug/libprelude-3.1.0/src/libprelude-error/strsource.c
> libprelude-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> /usr/src/debug/libprelude-3.1.0/src/libprelude-error/code-from-errno.h
> libprelude-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> /usr/src/debug/libprelude-3.1.0/src/libprelude-error/err-codes.h
> libprelude-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> /usr/src/debug/libprelude-3.1.0/src/libprelude-error/strerror.c
> It's not a big issue, but probably to fix upstream at some point.

I can't change this, this is not part of libprelude

> 
> libprelude.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-gnutls-2
> /usr/lib64/libprelude.so.23.3.0 gnutls_priority_init
> prelude-tools.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-gnutls-1
> /usr/bin/prelude-admin gnutls_priority_set_direct
> 
> This one is a bigger problem. It's been a while since I looked at the
> details, but basically you need to call gnutls_set_default_priority or 
> gnutls_priority_set_direct("@SYSTEM")
> [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:CryptoPolicies]. If this policy
> does not apply to this package for some reason, please explain in a comment
> in the spec file. Looking at ./prelude-admin/server.c, it should be easy
> enough to patch.

Done. I explain in the spec why it is OK for libprelude.so. For prelude-admin,
I made a patch to use what is required in the Wiki but I still have the warning

> 
> libprelude.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
> /usr/lib64/libprelude.so.23.3.0 /lib64/libdl.so.2
> libprelude.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
> /usr/lib64/libprelude.so.23.3.0 /lib64/libgpg-error.so.0
> libprelude.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
> /usr/lib64/libpreludecpp.so.8.1.0 /lib64/libgnutls.so.30
> libprelude.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
> /usr/lib64/libpreludecpp.so.8.1.0 /lib64/libgcrypt.so.20
> libprelude.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
> /usr/lib64/libpreludecpp.so.8.1.0 /lib64/libdl.so.2
> libprelude.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
> /usr/lib64/libpreludecpp.so.8.1.0 /lib64/libgpg-error.so.0
> libprelude.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
> /usr/lib64/libpreludecpp.so.8.1.0 /lib64/libltdl.so.7
> libprelude.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
> /usr/lib64/libpreludecpp.so.8.1.0 /lib64/libm.so.6
> 
> Overlinking? Not a big issue, because those libraries are going to be
> installed anyway, but removing it might reduce memory usage and startup time
> but some minuscule amount.

Done

> 
> And one more suggestion for upstream reconsideration:
> custom autoconf macros are horrible. 

[Bug 1386938] Review Request: libprelude - Prelude Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1386938



--- Comment #12 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
# Force default attrs because libprelude force others
%defattr(- , root, root, 755)
→ I think you don't need this anymore.

%{python3_sitearch}/_prelude.*so
%{python3_sitearch}/prelude.py
→ Not a packaging issue, but still something to reconsider upstream. I think
putting a private module at the top level is rather ugly. Imaging the mess if
everybody did that ;). Why not structure this as
%{python3_sitearch}/prelude/__init__.py
%{python3_sitearch}/prelude/_prelude.*so
? (Please note that I'm just complaining here, this review is not contingent on
this in any way.)

BR: perl-generators is needed according to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl#Build_Dependencies,
and also R: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT), see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl#Versioned_MODULE_COMPAT_Requires.

- Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
  Note: Bundled gnulib but no Provides: bundled(gnulib)
  See:
 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Requirement_if_you_bundle

- Note: License file LICENSE.README is not marked as %license
Yeah, it seems reasonable to include that in %license too.
Same goes for HACKING.README.

- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
  (~1MB) or number of files.
  Note: Documentation size is 5703680 bytes in 53 files.
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation

I'm not sure how exactly fedora-review arrives at this number, but it seems
that there's indeed a few MBs of documentation. You might want to split out
libprelude-doc subpackage with /usr/share/doc/libprelude-devel/libprelude.
(Also not that there's an extra level of directories nesting here that looks
accidental.)

rpmlint also says:
libprelude-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/libprelude-3.1.0/src/libprelude-error/code-to-errno.h
libprelude-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/libprelude-3.1.0/src/libprelude-error/err-sources.h
libprelude-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/libprelude-3.1.0/src/libprelude-error/strsource.c
libprelude-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/libprelude-3.1.0/src/libprelude-error/code-from-errno.h
libprelude-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/libprelude-3.1.0/src/libprelude-error/err-codes.h
libprelude-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/libprelude-3.1.0/src/libprelude-error/strerror.c
It's not a big issue, but probably to fix upstream at some point.

libprelude.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-gnutls-2
/usr/lib64/libprelude.so.23.3.0 gnutls_priority_init
prelude-tools.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-gnutls-1
/usr/bin/prelude-admin gnutls_priority_set_direct

This one is a bigger problem. It's been a while since I looked at the details,
but basically you need to call gnutls_set_default_priority or 
gnutls_priority_set_direct("@SYSTEM")
[https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:CryptoPolicies]. If this policy does
not apply to this package for some reason, please explain in a comment in the
spec file. Looking at ./prelude-admin/server.c, it should be easy enough to
patch.

libprelude.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libprelude.so.23.3.0 /lib64/libdl.so.2
libprelude.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libprelude.so.23.3.0 /lib64/libgpg-error.so.0
libprelude.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libpreludecpp.so.8.1.0 /lib64/libgnutls.so.30
libprelude.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libpreludecpp.so.8.1.0 /lib64/libgcrypt.so.20
libprelude.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libpreludecpp.so.8.1.0 /lib64/libdl.so.2
libprelude.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libpreludecpp.so.8.1.0 /lib64/libgpg-error.so.0
libprelude.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libpreludecpp.so.8.1.0 /lib64/libltdl.so.7
libprelude.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libpreludecpp.so.8.1.0 /lib64/libm.so.6

Overlinking? Not a big issue, because those libraries are going to be installed
anyway, but removing it might reduce memory usage and startup time but some
minuscule amount.

And one more suggestion for upstream reconsideration:
custom autoconf macros are horrible. The problem is that any project that wants
to use them, must either bundle them (which is annoying if you have more than
two or three dependencies), or wrap the calls to those macros in ugly and
brittle m4 macros for the case when the dependency is not installed. Please
consider providing a pkgconfig file, which is easier to write, easier to use,
and as a bonus, works with other build systems like meson. (Please note that
I'm just complaining here, this review is not contingent on this in any way.)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for 

[Bug 1386938] Review Request: libprelude - Prelude Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1386938



--- Comment #11 from Thomas Andrejak  ---
Here is the new version

SRPM :
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/totol/Prelude/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00479026-libprelude/libprelude-3.1.0-24.fc26.src.rpm
SPEC : https://www.prelude-siem.org/pkg/src/3.1.0/libprelude.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

[Bug 1386938] Review Request: libprelude - Prelude Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1386938



--- Comment #10 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
(In reply to Thomas Andrejak from comment #9)
> - For soname at the end of the subpackage name, this is what other linux
> distribution required, that's why I do it.
Yes, but Fedora doesn't work this way. In Fedora, there normally just one
version of a given library. Everybody upgrades at once. Hence no suffix.

> It make you able to install
> multiple libprelude versions in parallel. Do I really have to make only one
> subpackage with all ".so" files and do not precise the soname in the
> subpackage name ?
Yes.

> - Can you tell which macro you are talking about ?
I think the following macros are unneeded:
%global libname libprelude%{major}
%global libcpp  libpreludecpp%{cppmajor}
%global libnamedevellibprelude-devel


> - %description is required when you use "%package -n"
OK, let's leave that one for later.

Instead, please explain the difference between package %{libname} and 
package %{libcpp} (see how those macros make everything more obfuscated ;)).
Is there a reason why the second is not merged with the first?

> Thanks for sponsoring :) I will do some reviews this week
Great.

-- 
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

[Bug 1386938] Review Request: libprelude - Prelude Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1386938



--- Comment #9 from Thomas Andrejak  ---
Hello

Thanks for the review

Here is the new src file :
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/totol/Prelude/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00476797-libprelude/libprelude-3.1.0-24.fc26.src.rpm
And here the new spec file :
https://www.prelude-siem.org/pkg/src/3.1.0/libprelude.spec

I have some questions :

- For soname at the end of the subpackage name, this is what other linux
distribution required, that's why I do it. It make you able to install multiple
libprelude versions in parallel. Do I really have to make only one subpackage
with all ".so" files and do not precise the soname in the subpackage name ?

- Can you tell which macro you are talking about ?

- %description is required when you use "%package -n"

OK for evrything else :) See the spec file

--

Thanks for sponsoring :) I will do some reviews this week

-- 
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

[Bug 1386938] Review Request: libprelude - Prelude Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1386938

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com
   ||/show_bug.cgi?id=209214



--- Comment #8 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
Oh, it's always good to link to the previous review, if there was one.

-- 
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

[Bug 1386938] Review Request: libprelude - Prelude Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1386938

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #7 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
Please don't use pastebin for spec files. It's too ephemeral. Also, link to the
"raw" spec file, so that fedora-review and other tools work.

In Fedora, we only package the latest version of any library (in the usual
case; it's possible to provide "compat" packages, but this doesn't apply here).
So the library subpackage should go away, and the contents should be in the
main package. Similarly for the cpp subpackage, it should not have the version
in the name.

Please consider reducing the number of macros. They provide no value, and make
everything very hard to read. The guidelines say that macros should be used for
*directory* names, and using macros for things which cannot ever change is
pointless [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Macros].

You probably don't need to repeat the full %description for libpreludecpp, but
you should mention how this subpackage is different from the main subpackage.

%package -n prelude-tools
Summary:The interface for %{libname}
→
Summary:Command-line tools for libprelude

python2 subpackage should be called python2-prelude.
%{python_provide} must be used
[https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#The_.25python_provide_macro].

%setup -q
%autopatch -p1
→ %autosetup -p1

%{_bindir}/chrpath → chrpath (see the link to guidelines for macro usage
above).

It is better to avoid using wildcards in the %files section to have an idea
what is installed with the package. Doing the following change would make it
more safe (same for python3 subpackage):

> %{python2_sitelib}/*

change to

%{python2_sitelib}/whatever
%{python2_sitelib}/whatever-%{version}-py?.?.egg-info

The license files and the basic documentation (AUTHORS ChangeLog README NEWS
LICENSE.README HACKING.README) goes in the main subpackage.

The package looks good for such a complicated project. I think you're 90% of
the way there ;)

--

I can sponsor you into the packagers group. In addition to the package that you
are submitting, I require two-three real reviews of other packages (see
http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html). There's plenty of
python packages awaiting review, so you should be able to find something
interesting without any trouble. In your review, please indicate that you are
not a packager yet, hence the review is unofficial. If nobody beats you to it,
you'll be able to finalize those reviews after you become a packager (hopefully
soon ;)). Running fedora-review and carefully looking at the output is a good
start.

-- 
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

[Bug 1386938] Review Request: libprelude - Prelude Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1386938



--- Comment #6 from Thomas Andrejak  ---
Hello

Can someone help me on this bug ?

I'm also looking for a sponsor

Thanks

Regards

-- 
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

[Bug 1386938] Review Request: libprelude - Prelude Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1386938



--- Comment #5 from Thomas Andrejak  ---
Hello

Here is the new spec : http://pastebin.com/wupPjGUX
And here is the new SRPM :
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/totol/Prelude/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00471732-libprelude/libprelude-3.1.0-24.fc26.src.rpm

I still have errors for FSF address not up to date but it is libgpg-error
sources. What do I have to do for this ?

Feel free to make other reviews

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

[Bug 1386938] Review Request: libprelude - Prelude Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1386938



--- Comment #4 from Thomas Andrejak  ---
Thanks for the review, I'll 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

[Bug 1386938] Review Request: libprelude - Prelude Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1386938



--- Comment #3 from Michael Schwendt  ---
Drive-by comments. Not a full review, because due to number of issues, this
package will need some more work.

Consider pointing the "fedora-review" tool at this bugzilla ticket. The tool
performs test-builds and then runs *many* checks on them, which are relevant to
both the package maintainer as well as potential reviewers. Some of the checks,
such as the licensing related ones, are extremely helpful.


> %define major   23
> %define libname libprelude%{major}
> %define cppmajor8
> %define libcpp  libpreludecpp%{cppmajor}
> %define libnamedevellibprelude-devel

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define


> Summary:Prelude Hybrid Intrusion Detection System Library

The summary could be made even shorter and more concise if not repeating the
name of the library here. "Prelude" is an English word with various meanings
that adds more ambiguity here than value. The %description expands on the name
of this library framework. And there has yet to be a package tool that
completely ignores the package %name when displaying a user's search results.

Interestingly, the acronym "IDMEF" and its spelled out words don't appear
anywhere in the spec file %summary or %description.


> Group:  System/Libraries

The base group for runtime library packages has been "System
Environment/Libraries" for ages.

At Fedora, the Group tag is fully optional for a long time. So long that even
the section in the packaging guidelines, which explained that, has been
replaced:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections


> Patch0: libprelude-3.1.0-linking.patch

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Patch_Guidelines


> %define major   23
> %define libname libprelude%{major}
> %package -n %{libname}

Ewwwh. As convenient as such versioned package names may be in some cases,
doing it like this is a halfbaked solution. Whenever you would change %major,
it would also change package names, and you would end up with orphaned packages
in the repositories and on users' installations. Versioned packages make the
most sense, if you actually wanted to release multiple parallel-installable
APIs/ABIs to choose from. Then you would package older compatibility releases
separately and with their own %name.


> %package -n %{libname}
> Provides:   %{name} = %{version}-%{release}

Useless, because incomplete. There are arch-specific automatic Provides these
days, and this line would not be sufficient and would break any explicit
arch-specific Requires:

  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package


> Group:  Development/C

This may be a group used by other distributions. It is "Development/Libraries"
for Red Hat and Fedora for ages, but the Group tag is optional nowadays anyway.
Not going to check all the other group tags.


> Requires:   %{libname} = %{version}-%{release}
> Requires:   %{libcpp} = %{version}-%{release}

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package


> %{_libdir}/libprelude.so.%{major}
> %{_libdir}/libprelude.so.%{major}.*

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Shared_Libraries

Also with regard to the other lib subpackages.


> %files -n %{libnamedevel}
> %doc %{_docdir}/%{libnamedevel}

Anything in and below %_docdir is marked %doc by default (see "rpm -E
%__docdir_path").


> %{_datadir}/%{name}/swig

Nothing in the spec file seems to include %_datadir/%name yet.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories


> %doc AUTHORS ChangeLog README INSTALL

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text


> %attr(0644,root,root) %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/prelude/default/*.conf

Those are the default attributes for files. Consider adding a comment that
explains whether and why you want to override something using %attr here.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions

-- 
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

[Bug 1386938] Review Request: libprelude - Prelude Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1386938

Thomas Andrejak  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor
-- 
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

[Bug 1386938] Review Request: libprelude - Prelude Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1386938



--- Comment #2 from Thomas Andrejak  ---
I miss some details :
- I'm the upstream maintainer of Prelude
- I never push package to Fedora but I package prelude for OpenSuse and I help
Mageia team to do it also
- I'm looking for a sponsor
- Prelude was packaged in Fedora until F19

-- 
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

[Bug 1386938] Review Request: libprelude - Prelude Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1386938



--- Comment #1 from Thomas Andrejak  ---
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16127586

-- 
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