https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028743 Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) <pahan(a)hubbitus.info&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alias| |hans -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028743 Christopher Meng <cickumqt(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng <cickumqt(a)gmail.com&gt; --- 1. Update systemd scriptlets. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Systemd 2. Users & Groups template: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UsersAndGroups#Dynamic_allocation 3. Conditional lines for different init systems please if you want to maintain it in one spec. Currently they are broken. 4. No -sysvinit package please, handle them in conditional lines. Or turn it into %_bindir. 5. %{buildroot}/ --> %{buildroot} -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028743 --- Comment #2 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) <pahan(a)hubbitus.info&gt; --- Hello, Christoper. Thanks for the comments. %changelog * Tue Mar 11 2014 Pavel Alexeev <Pahan(a)Hubbitus.info&gt; - 0.4.3-3 - Drop all sysvinit support because it now MUST NOT be present in new packages (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SysVInitScript?rd=Packaging/SysV...). - Change user creation procedure, move in base package. Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6622750 Spec changes: https://github.com/Hubbitus/Fedora-packaging/commit/4e1c066a0a0ff81571276... Spec: https://raw.github.com/Hubbitus/Fedora-packaging/4e1c066a0a0ff81571276ec4... Srpm: http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora20/hans/hans-0.4.3-3.fc21.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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028743 --- Comment #4 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) <pahan(a)hubbitus.info&gt; --- Christopher could we continue please?? -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028743 Fabian Affolter <mail(a)fabian-affolter.ch&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028743 --- Comment #6 from Michal Ambroz <rebus(a)seznam.cz&gt; --- One more bit - the LICENSE should go to separate %license tag. -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028743 --- Comment #8 from Michal Ambroz <rebus(a)seznam.cz&gt; --- As there is no update from Christopher Meng for couple of years, I will take over the package review. Michal Ambroz -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028743 --- Comment #9 from Pavel Alexeev <pahan(a)hubbitus.info&gt; --- @Michal, do you plan continue review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028743 --- Comment #11 from Michal Ambroz <rebus(a)seznam.cz&gt; --- Package Review ============== Summary: - please use the %{optflags} - consider syncing the %pre and "%pre server" macros for user creation - consider making the dependency of the client and server fully versioned Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [X]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [X]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [X]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. GPLv3+ sha1.cpp licensed with sha1_license.txt tunemu licensed with 2 clause BSD - compatible to be included in GPLv3+ project [X]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (2 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in licensecheck.txt [X]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed license included in the base has package, it is required from the subpackages [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. please use the %{optflags} such as make %{?_smp_mflags} CFLAGS="%{optflags}" [X]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [X]: Changelog in prescribed format. [X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [X]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [X]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [X]: Package does not generate any conflict. [X]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [X]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [X]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [X]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [X]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [X ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files. [X]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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 %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [X]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in hans- client , hans-server , hans-debuginfo [X]: Package functions as described. [X]: Latest version is packaged. [X]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [?]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [X]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [X]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- - seems to be sane to me Checking: hans-1.0-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm hans-client-1.0-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm hans-server-1.0-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm hans-debuginfo-1.0-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm hans-1.0-1.fc26.src.rpm hans.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US firewalled -> fire walled, fire-walled, firewall ed hans.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hans hans-client.x86_64: W: no-documentation hans-client.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /etc/sysconfig/hans-client hans hans-client.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/sysconfig/hans-client 600 hans-server.x86_64: W: no-documentation hans-server.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /etc/sysconfig/hans-server hans hans-server.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/sysconfig/hans-server 600 hans.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US firewalled -> fire walled, fire-walled, firewall ed 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: hans-debuginfo-1.0-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- hans.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US firewalled -> fire walled, fire-walled, firewall ed hans.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hans hans-server.x86_64: W: no-documentation hans-server.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /etc/sysconfig/hans-server hans hans-server.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/sysconfig/hans-server 600 hans-client.x86_64: W: no-documentation hans-client.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /etc/sysconfig/hans-client hans hans-client.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/sysconfig/hans-client 600 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings. Requires -------- hans (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) shadow-utils hans-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): hans-server (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh config(hans-server) hans systemd hans-client (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh config(hans-client) hans systemd Provides -------- hans: hans hans(x86-64) hans-debuginfo: hans-debuginfo hans-debuginfo(x86-64) hans-server: config(hans-server) hans-server hans-server(x86-64) hans-client: config(hans-client) hans-client hans-client(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/friedrich/hans/archive/v1.0.tar.gz#/hans-1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 53090083d440466e573b35f2eeab0b4b0dcd3e6290f797c999b4f5a0b5caaba2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 53090083d440466e573b35f2eeab0b4b0dcd3e6290f797c999b4f5a0b5caaba2 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1028743 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028743 Michal Ambroz <rebus(a)seznam.cz&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pahan(a)hubbitus.info Flags| |needinfo?(pahan(a)hubbitus.in | |fo) -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028743 --- Comment #14 from Pavel Alexeev <pahan(a)hubbitus.info&gt; --- Michal ping -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028743 --- Comment #16 from Michal Ambroz <rebus(a)seznam.cz&gt; --- Hello Pavel, I still see a password in the config, just this time it is literally "<PASSWORD>" as a password. Or am I missing something? You know - things like Mirai are spreading because of default passwords. Mik. -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028743 Michal Ambroz <rebus(a)seznam.cz&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #18 from Michal Ambroz <rebus(a)seznam.cz&gt; --- Hello Pavel, perfect - tested the package and it won't start if password was not changed. Good. Please there are some minor typos in the changelog. Other than that - free to go. Michal Ambroz -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028743 --- Comment #20 from Pavel Alexeev <pahan(a)hubbitus.info&gt; --- Sorry for the delay. Repo requested https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/23 -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028743 --- Comment #22 from Gwyn Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com&gt; --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/hans -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028743 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028743 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- hans-1.0-3.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-2017-289180fc05 -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028743 --- Comment #27 from Pavel Alexeev <pahan(a)hubbitus.info&gt; --- Michal Ambroz thank you very much for the review. Hans eventually in Fedora. Could I also review something for you? -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028743 --- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- hans-1.0-3.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