Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243669
Summary: Review Request: pfqueue - Queue manager for the Postfix/Exim Mail Transport Agents Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mfleming+rpm@enlartenment.com QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://www.thatfleminggent.com/fedorasubs/pfqueue.spec SRPM URL: http://www.thatfleminggent.com/fedorasubs/pfqueue-0.5.6-1.fc7.mf.src.rpm Description:
pfqueue is a console application for managing mail queues used by the Postfix or Exim mail transport agents.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: pfqueue - Queue manager for the Postfix/Exim Mail Transport Agents
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243669
wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro Flag| |fedora-review?
------- Additional Comments From wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro 2007-06-11 11:11 EST ------- Just built the package in mock and there seem to be a couple of issues. 1. Naming: please drop the extra "mf" after %dist. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines?highlight=%28Packag... 2. According to rpmlint, the binary seems to have problems:
[wolfy@wolfy64 result]$ rpmlint pfqueue-0.5.6-1.fc7.mf.x86_64.rpm W: pfqueue devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libpfq_exim.so W: pfqueue devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libpfqueue.so W: pfqueue devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libpfq_postfix2.so W: pfqueue devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libpfq_socket.so W: pfqueue devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libpfq_postfix1.so E: pfqueue binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/pfqueue ['/usr/lib64'] E: pfqueue binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/spfqueue ['/usr/lib64']
The so files probably are libs called by the binary, but I think that the rpath stuff is not OK. Please see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-c17fb8c1ce9be40da720...
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: pfqueue - Queue manager for the Postfix/Exim Mail Transport Agents
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243669
------- Additional Comments From mfleming+rpm@enlartenment.com 2007-06-13 09:08 EST ------- I'll drop the .mf on import, no problem - these are coming from my own repo and are being used there as a "testbed"
You are correct re: the shared libs are actually dlopen()ed by the application and are used to handle the different Postfix or Exim (including over remote socket) queue types.
I've fixed the rpath issues (verified here) - see..
http://www.thatfleminggent.com/fedorasubs/pfqueue.spec http://www.thatfleminggent.com/fedorasubs/pfqueue-0.5.6-3.fc7.mf.src.rpm
..for new improved releases.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: pfqueue - Queue manager for the Postfix/Exim Mail Transport Agents
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243669
wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
------- Additional Comments From wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro 2007-06-13 10:19 EST ------- Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [!] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. Release tag must be changed (.mf dropped) [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested on:FC6 & devel, x86_64 and Centos4/i386 [x] Rpmlint output: W: pfqueue devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libpfq_exim.so W: pfqueue devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libpfqueue.so W: pfqueue devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libpfq_postfix2.so W: pfqueue devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libpfq_socket.so W: pfqueue devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libpfq_postfix1.so All these can be ignored, the files are not devel libs but dlopened at runtime. Since they are small, there is no point in separating -exim and -postfix files [x] Package is not relocatable. [x] Buildroot is correct (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)) [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type:GPL [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 is included in %doc. [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. SHA1SUM of package: 29fc58eab31b1a6225bda1205f155ed5cfb951b2 pfqueue-0.5.6.tar.gz [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch, OR: Arches excluded: Why: [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly. [x] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. [-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [x] Package consistently uses macros. [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS === [x] Latest version is packaged. [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: Centos/i386, FC6/x86_64, devel/x86_64 [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Tested on: Centos/i386, FC6/x86_64, devel/x86_64 [x] Package functions as described. [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x] File based requires are sane.
=== Issues === 1. Source tag should be changed to the more reliable http://downloads.sourceforge.net/pfqueue/%%7Bname%7D-%%7Bversion%7D.tar.gz. The one currently used consistently fails for me 2. The ".mf" part of the release tag should be removed 3. Please drop the INSTALL file from %doc. It contains generic installation instructions which are useless for those using the binary rpm
=== Final Notes === 1.
================ *** APPROVED *** ================
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: pfqueue - Queue manager for the Postfix/Exim Mail Transport Agents
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243669
mfleming+rpm@enlartenment.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
------- Additional Comments From mfleming+rpm@enlartenment.com 2007-06-17 04:57 EST ------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: pfqueue Short Description: Queue manager for the Postfix/Exim Mail Transport Agents Owners: mfleming+rpm@enlartenment.com Branches: F-7 FC-6 EL-4 EL-5 InitialCC:
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: pfqueue - Queue manager for the Postfix/Exim Mail Transport Agents
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243669
kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2007-06-18 00:44 EST ------- cvs done.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: pfqueue - Queue manager for the Postfix/Exim Mail Transport Agents
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243669
mfleming+rpm@enlartenment.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org