[Bug 732480] New: Review Request: gofer - An extensible, light weight, universal python agent
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: gofer - An extensible, light weight, universal python agent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732480
Summary: Review Request: gofer - An extensible, light weight, universal python agent Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jortel@redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: ---
Spec URL: https://fedorahosted.org/releases/g/o/gofer/gofer.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorahosted.org/releases/g/o/gofer/gofer-0.46-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: Gofer provides an extensible, light weight, universal python agent. The gofer core agent is a python daemon (service) that provides an infrastructure for exposing a remote API and for running Recurring Actions. The APIs provided by plugins are accessible by Remote Method Invocation (RMI). The transport for RMI is AMQP using the QPID message broker. Actions are also provided by plugins and are executed at the specified interval.
See also: https://fedorahosted.org/gofer
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=732480
--- Comment #1 from Jeff Ortel jortel@redhat.com 2011-08-22 11:51:47 EDT --- [jortel@localhost gofer]$ rpmlint /tmp/tito/gofer-0.46-1.fc14.src.rpm gofer.src:25: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes %{name}-lib gofer.src:104: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package) %{_libdir}/%{name}/plugins/ gofer.src:137: W: macro-in-%changelog %files gofer.src:141: W: macro-in-%changelog %doc 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
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=732480
--- Comment #2 from Jeff Ortel jortel@redhat.com 2011-08-23 16:21:10 EDT --- During some follow up testing of gofer 0.46 on a clean VM, I found that I'd gone too far when cleaning up rpmlint warnings. I accidentally replaced "etc" in the source of some file copies in %build with the %{_sysconfdir} which causes the 0.46 rpm build to fail on a clean machine. I fixed this and tagged as 0.47. I also cleaned up a few warning about macros in the changelog. So, please review using:
SRPM URL: https://fedorahosted.org/releases/g/o/gofer/gofer-0.47-1.fc14.src.rpm
Also:
[jortel@localhost gofer]$ rpmlint /tmp/tito/gofer-0.47-1.fc14.src.rpm gofer.src:25: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes %{name}-lib gofer.src:104: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package) %{_libdir}/%{name}/plugins/ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Sorry for the confusion.
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=732480
John Matthews jmatthew@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |jmatthew@redhat.com AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jmatthew@redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review?
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=732480
--- Comment #3 from Jeff Ortel jortel@redhat.com 2011-09-09 17:18:17 EDT --- Review comments applied: - /var replaced with %{_var} for consistency. - permissions fixed for /etc/gofer/agent.conf - description expanded to match wiki (minus gopher sentence). - %define macro replaced with: %global
SRPM URL: https://fedorahosted.org/releases/g/o/gofer/gofer-0.48-1.fc14.src.rpm
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=732480
--- Comment #4 from John Matthews jmatthew@redhat.com 2011-09-09 17:39:14 EDT --- From: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines
== MUST == [x]: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. $ rpmlint gofer-0.48-1.fc14.src.rpm gofer.src:31: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes %{name}-lib gofer.src:110: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package) %{_libdir}/%{name}/plugins/ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-15-i386/result/gofer-0.48-1.fc15.noarch.rpm gofer.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gofer/plugins/watchdog.conf gofer.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gofer/plugins/builtin.conf gofer.noarch: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/gofer gofer.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary goferd gofer.noarch: W: service-default-enabled /etc/init.d/goferd gofer.noarch: W: no-reload-entry /etc/init.d/goferd 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-15-i386/result/ruby-gofer-0.48-1.fc15.noarch.rpm ruby-gofer.noarch: E: world-writable /var/lib/gofer/journal 0777L ruby-gofer.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/gofer/journal 0777L 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-15-i386/result/python-gofer-0.48-1.fc15.noarch.rpm python-gofer.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided gofer-lib python-gofer.noarch: E: world-writable /var/lib/gofer/journal 0777L python-gofer.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/gofer/journal 0777L 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings.
[x]: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . [x]: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [x]: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . [x]: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . [x]: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. [x]: The spec file must be written in American English. [x]: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [x]: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. $ md5sum gofer-0.48.tar.gz 0486ed9a9a559d7d060c8d96c6f5024c gofer-0.48.tar.gz $ md5sum tmp/gofer-0.48.tar.gz 0486ed9a9a559d7d060c8d96c6f5024c tmp/gofer-0.48.tar.gz [x]: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [N/A]: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. [x]: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. [N/A]: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. [N/A]: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [x]: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [N/A]: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. [x]: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [x]: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations) [x]: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. [x]: Each package must consistently use macros. [x]: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [N/A]: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [x]: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [N/A]: Header files must be in a -devel package. [N/A]: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [N/A]: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [N/A]: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} [x]: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [N/A]: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. [x]: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [x]: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
== SHOULD ==
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [N/A]: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Verified i386 & x86_64 with: mock -r fedora-15-x86_64 --rebuild gofer-0.48-1.fc14.src.rpm mock -r fedora-15-i386 --rebuild gofer-0.48-1.fc14.src.rpm [x]: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. [x]: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [x]: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. Note: python-gofer and ruby-gofer do not require gofer RPM. This is intended. The python-gofer and ruby-gofer RPMs are client libraries providing access to a gofer agent which may run on a remote machine.
[N/A]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [x]: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [Missing]: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. Note: No man pages present
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=732480
--- Comment #5 from John Matthews jmatthew@redhat.com 2011-09-09 17:51:06 EDT --- Points to note on review:
1) From rpmlint: /var/lib/gofer/journal is mode 0777 - I spoke with Jeff, this is intentional. The directory is used by the watchdog functionality in gofer and requires a shared location on disk that is accessible and writeable by all
2) From rplmint: gofer.src:110: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package) %{_libdir}/%{name}/plugins/ Gofer is storing python plugins (non C compiled code) in /usr/lib/gofer/plugins Similar to behavior seen with yum and it's plugins. - I discussed this point with Jeff and feel this is sane.
3) subpackages python-gofer and ruby-gofer do not require parent package. - This is intentional. As noted, python-gofer and ruby-gofer are client libraries to access a gofer agent. There is a use case for them being installed alone, without the parent rpm, 'gofer'.
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=732480
--- Comment #6 from Dennis Gilmore dennis@ausil.us 2011-09-09 18:32:47 EDT --- %{_libdir}/%{name}/plugins/
should likely be %{_datadir}/%{name}/plugins/ which expands to /usr/share/gopher/plugins
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=732480
--- Comment #7 from Jeff Ortel jortel@redhat.com 2011-09-12 09:45:49 EDT --- Thanks for you comments Dennis.
I did some searching for a definition of the Linux Directory Structure that is more definitive that my own understanding. Most definitions seemed to agree that /usr/lib was for libraries or program parts used by programs in /usr/bin. I didn't see anything that required the programs or program parts be compiled. Since we routinely put non-binaries like shell scripts and python modules in /usr/bin, I still assert that putting python modules in /usr/lib is acceptable. As mentioned, other fedora packages such as yum already set some precedent for this. Since /usr/bin/goferd loads these modules, it seems to fit. That said, I also read that /opt is for optional program parts, extensions or resources for programs in /usr/bin. If determined that /usr/lib is not an acceptable location for gofer plugin modules, I think /opt/gofer/plugins would be a good alternative.
As for /var/lib/gofer/journal, based on my research, I /think/ /usr/share/gofer/journal would be a better location for this. The /usr/share directory seems to be for "shared" data. I'll try it this morning and see if rpmlint will find this location more acceptable.
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=732480
--- Comment #8 from Jeff Ortel jortel@redhat.com 2011-09-13 18:44:06 EDT --- In 0.48-3, I moved /usr/lib/gofer/journal to /usr/share/gofer/journal and rpmlint seems much happier. I believe this is more appropriate.
I also added noreplace: %config(noreplace) per rpmlint warnings.
SRPM URL: https://fedorahosted.org/releases/g/o/gofer/gofer-0.48-3.fc14.src.rpm
RPMLINT:
[jortel@localhost gofer]$ rpmlint /tmp/tito/gofer-0.48-3.fc14.src.rpm gofer.src:31: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes %{name}-lib gofer.src:110: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package) %{_libdir}/%{name}/plugins/ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
[jortel@localhost gofer]$ rpmlint /tmp/tito/noarch/gofer-0.48-3.fc14.noarch.rpm gofer.noarch: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/gofer gofer.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary goferd gofer.noarch: W: service-default-enabled /etc/init.d/goferd gofer.noarch: W: no-reload-entry /etc/init.d/goferd 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
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=732480
--- Comment #9 from Jeff Ortel jortel@redhat.com 2011-09-23 17:22:13 EDT --- After review of FHS standards, it seems that /usr/share is for static data only. Seems that /var/lib/gofer/journal is more appropriate. But, rpmlint has a fit over the 777 perms. I wonder how we can resolve this?
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#USRSHAREARCHITECTUREINDEPENDENT...
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=732480
--- Comment #10 from John Matthews jmatthew@redhat.com 2011-09-26 10:18:26 EDT --- I agree, /var/lib/gofer/journal seems more appropriate.
As to the rpmlint error, we know the directory is world readable/writable and it is the intended behavior.
I'd recommend we add a note in the .spec that this is intended behavior.
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=732480
--- Comment #11 from Jeff Ortel jortel@redhat.com 2011-09-27 16:40:29 EDT --- I moved the journal back to /var/lib/gofer/journal/watchdog with permissions acceptable to rpmlint. Also notice that 0.49 has a few more sub-packages.
Spec URL: https://fedorahosted.org/releases/g/o/gofer/gofer.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorahosted.org/releases/g/o/gofer/gofer-0.49-1.fc14.src.rpm
Looks rpmlint has the opposite issue with /var/log/gofer. This directory is closed down to owner (root) only because sensitive data is logged.
gofer.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/log/gofer 0700L
I can probably deal with this the same was as the journal directory.
rpmlint on all packages:
gofer.src:83: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package) %{_libdir}/%{name}/plugins/builtin.* gofer.src:104: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes %{name}-lib gofer.src:170: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package gofer-system %{_libdir}/%{name}/plugins/system.* gofer.src:192: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package gofer-watchdog %{_libdir}/%{name}/plugins/watchdog.* gofer.src:214: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package gofer-virt %{_libdir}/%{name}/plugins/virt.* gofer.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/log/gofer 0700L gofer.noarch: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/gofer gofer.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary goferd gofer.noarch: W: service-default-enabled /etc/init.d/goferd gofer.noarch: W: no-reload-entry /etc/init.d/goferd python-gofer.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided gofer-lib gofer-system.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib gofer-watchdog.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib gofer-virt.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) virtualization -> actualization, visualization, contextualization gofer-virt.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) plugin -> plug in, plug-in, plugging gofer-virt.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualization -> actualization, visualization, contextualization gofer-virt.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugin -> plug in, plug-in, plugging gofer-virt.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libvirt -> liberty, Liberty, librate gofer-virt.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 18 warnings.
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=732480
--- Comment #12 from Jeff Ortel jortel@redhat.com 2011-09-27 17:07:32 EDT ---
Complaint: gofer.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/log/gofer 0700L has been addressed.
Spec URL: https://fedorahosted.org/releases/g/o/gofer/gofer.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorahosted.org/releases/g/o/gofer/gofer-0.49-2.fc14.src.rpm
No rpmlint errors:
gofer.src:83: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package) %{_libdir}/%{name}/plugins/builtin.* gofer.src:105: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes %{name}-lib gofer.src:171: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package gofer-system %{_libdir}/%{name}/plugins/system.* gofer.src:193: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package gofer-watchdog %{_libdir}/%{name}/plugins/watchdog.* gofer.src:215: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package gofer-virt %{_libdir}/%{name}/plugins/virt.* gofer.noarch: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/gofer gofer.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary goferd gofer.noarch: W: service-default-enabled /etc/init.d/goferd gofer.noarch: W: no-reload-entry /etc/init.d/goferd python-gofer.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided gofer-lib gofer-system.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib gofer-watchdog.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib gofer-virt.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) virtualization -> actualization, visualization, contextualization gofer-virt.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) plugin -> plug in, plug-in, plugging gofer-virt.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualization -> actualization, visualization, contextualization gofer-virt.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugin -> plug in, plug-in, plugging gofer-virt.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libvirt -> liberty, Liberty, librate gofer-virt.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 18 warnings.
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=732480
--- Comment #13 from Jeff Ortel jortel@redhat.com 2011-09-27 19:53:08 EDT --- John,
Please use the following when continuing the review:
Spec URL: https://fedorahosted.org/releases/g/o/gofer/gofer.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorahosted.org/releases/g/o/gofer/gofer-0.49-3.fc14.src.rpm
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=732480
James Laska jlaska@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |743402
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=732480
--- Comment #14 from Jeff Ortel jortel@redhat.com 2011-10-19 16:55:34 EDT --- Upstream .spec updated to 0.50-1.
Spec URL: https://fedorahosted.org/releases/g/o/gofer/gofer.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorahosted.org/releases/g/o/gofer/gofer-0.50-1.fc14.src.rpm
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=732480
--- Comment #15 from John Matthews jmatthew@redhat.com 2011-10-24 13:14:51 EDT --- Updated rpmlint info for version 0.50-1
$ rpmlint gofer-0.50-1.fc14.src.rpm gofer.src:83: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package) %{_libdir}/%{name}/plugins/builtin.* gofer.src:105: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes %{name}-lib gofer.src:171: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package gofer-system %{_libdir}/%{name}/plugins/system.* gofer.src:193: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package gofer-watchdog %{_libdir}/%{name}/plugins/watchdog.* gofer.src:215: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package gofer-virt %{_libdir}/%{name}/plugins/virt.* 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-15-x86_64/result/gofer-0.50-1.fc15.noarch.rpm gofer.noarch: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/gofer gofer.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary goferd gofer.noarch: W: service-default-enabled /etc/init.d/goferd gofer.noarch: W: no-reload-entry /etc/init.d/goferd 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-15-x86_64/result/gofer-system-0.50-1.fc15.noarch.rpm gofer-system.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-15-x86_64/result/gofer-virt-0.50-1.fc15.noarch.rpm gofer-virt.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) virtualization -> actualization, visualization, conceptualization gofer-virt.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) plugin -> plug in, plug-in, plugging gofer-virt.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualization -> actualization, visualization, conceptualization gofer-virt.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugin -> plug in, plug-in, plugging gofer-virt.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libvirt -> liberty, Liberty, librate gofer-virt.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-15-x86_64/result/gofer-watchdog-0.50-1.fc15.noarch.rpm gofer-watchdog.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
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=732480
--- Comment #16 from John Matthews jmatthew@redhat.com 2011-10-24 13:18:51 EDT --- $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-15-x86_64/result/python-gofer-0.50-1.fc15.noarch.rpm python-gofer.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided gofer-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings
$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-15-x86_64/result/ruby-gofer-0.50-1.fc15.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
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=732480
John Matthews jmatthew@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #17 from John Matthews jmatthew@redhat.com 2011-10-24 13:23:24 EDT --- APPROVED.
See comment #4 for in package review checklist and latest rpmlint output in comment #15 and comment #16.
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=732480
Jeff Ortel jortel@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #18 from Jeff Ortel jortel@redhat.com 2011-10-28 11:35:11 EDT --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: gofer Short Description: An extensible, light weight, universal python agent. Owners: jortel Branches: f14 f15 f16 el5 el6 InitialCC:
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=732480
--- Comment #19 from Jon Ciesla limb@jcomserv.net 2011-10-28 12:05:31 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
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=732480
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
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=732480
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-11-01 15:35:14 EDT --- gofer-0.54-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gofer-0.54-1.fc16
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=732480
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-11-01 15:35:23 EDT --- gofer-0.54-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gofer-0.54-1.el6
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=732480
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-11-01 15:35:30 EDT --- gofer-0.54-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gofer-0.54-1.el5
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=732480
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-11-01 15:35:39 EDT --- gofer-0.54-1.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gofer-0.54-1.fc14
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=732480
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-11-01 15:35:47 EDT --- gofer-0.54-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gofer-0.54-1.fc15
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=732480
--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-11-19 14:59:26 EST --- gofer-0.54-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
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=732480
--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-11-19 18:28:47 EST --- gofer-0.54-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.
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=732480
--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-11-19 18:33:33 EST --- gofer-0.54-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.
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=732480
--- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-11-19 18:33:50 EST --- gofer-0.54-1.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository.
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=732480
Mo Morsi mmorsi@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|743402 |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732480
Charalampos Stratakis cstratak@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED CC| |cstratak@redhat.com Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed| |2016-09-27 10:41:42
--- Comment #29 from Charalampos Stratakis cstratak@redhat.com --- Since the package has been built for quite some time now, the review request bugzilla should be closed.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla