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: nagios-nsca - nagios passive check daemon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433547 ------- Additional Comments From wart(a)kobold.org 2008-02-21 15:26 EST ------- Hi Xavier, It looks like we started from the same DAG rpm. :) Don't forget that the /etc/nagios/*.cfg files need to be mode 0600 and readable only by root because they contain encryption passwords. Since you've also worked on the same package, would you like to review and/or comaintain this with me? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

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: nagios-nsca - nagios passive check daemon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433547 ------- Additional Comments From xavier(a)bachelot.org 2008-02-28 12:42 EST ------- Hi Wart, Here are my preliminary comments on your package : Summary is not capitalized. I like nsca-client much better than what I used. Is it really useful to suffix the packages with nagios- though ? This would clear rpmlint output from nagios-nsca.i386: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/nsca $prog nagios-nsca.i386: W: incoherent-init-script-name nsca nagios, nrpe and all are in the group Applications/System. You probably want to use the same. I don't have the BR: on libmcrypt-devel and my package build fine. Is it necessary to keep it ? I have some requires on /sbin/service and /sbin/chkconfig, taken from nrpe packages, not sure this is needed, can't find anything in the packaging guidelines. Requires(preun): /sbin/service, /sbin/chkconfig Requires(post): /sbin/chkconfig, /sbin/service Requires(postun): /sbin/service NetSaint can probably be stripped out of the description. Upstream ships an initscript (generated at build time actually) that only lacks reload, it might not worth to replace it completely. 0600 on the conf files is good. No doc in nsca-client, add %doc Changelog LEGAL README SECURITY Nothing more for today, let me know what you think. Regards, Xavier -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

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: nagios-nsca - nagios passive check daemon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433547 ------- Additional Comments From wart(a)kobold.org 2008-03-09 21:43 EST ------- Here's another iteration based on the package that you mailed me (thanks!). I think we should keep 'NetSaint' in the description because we're not disabling any netsaint functionality. I also merged the sed script that was modifying the init script into the existing init script patch. It seemed silly to use both a patch and a sed script for the same file: http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/nsca.spec http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/nsca-2.7.2-4.fc8.src.rpm I haven't tried the new init script myself; I'll take your word that it works as expected. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

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: nagios-nsca - nagios passive check daemon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433547 ------- Additional Comments From xavier(a)bachelot.org 2008-03-10 14:45 EST ------- + source files match upstream: 33a98e7975f633a9489d7a8938ed6131 + package meets naming and versioning guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) + license field matches the actual license. + license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream. + latest version is being packaged. + BuildRequires are proper. + compiler flags are appropriate. + package builds in mock ( ). + package installs properly + debuginfo package looks complete. + rpmlint is not silent, but the 2 warnings are expected : nsca.i386: E: non-readable /etc/nagios/nsca.cfg 0600 nsca-client.i386: E: non-readable /etc/nagios/send_nsca.cfg 0600 + final provides and requires are sane: Provides: config(nsca) = 2.7.2-4.el5 Requires(interp): /bin/sh /bin/sh /bin/sh Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 Requires(post): /bin/sh /sbin/chkconfig Requires(preun): /bin/sh /sbin/chkconfig /sbin/service Requires(postun): /bin/sh /sbin/service Requires: /bin/sh config(nsca) = 2.7.2-4.el5 libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4) libc.so.6(GLIB C_2.4) libmcrypt.so.4 libnsl.so.1 nagios rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides: config(nsca-client) = 2.7.2-4.el5 Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 Requires: config(nsca-client) = 2.7.2-4.el5 libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) libmcrypt.so.4 libnsl.so.1 rtld(GNU_HASH) + no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. - owns the directories it creates. nsca-client should own /etc/nagios because it doesn't require nagios. nsca doesn't because it requires nagios. + doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + scriptlets follow guidelines. + code, not content. + documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. + %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. + no headers. + no pkgconfig files. + no libtool .la droppings. + not a GUI app. just add %dir %{_sysconfdir}/nagios for the client and it should be good to go. additional note : nsca-2.7.2-initreload.patch might need to be renamed now it does more than just add reload to the init script. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

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: nagios-nsca - nagios passive check daemon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433547 ------- Additional Comments From sstarr(a)platform.com 2008-03-17 18:52 EST ------- You depending on the nagios package for both the client and server. Only server needs nagios itself installed. What about the nagios user? Since your compiling NSCA requiring the nagios using being present you'll need the user. This package should attempt to create the user and otherwise silently ignore if it exists already. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

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: nagios-nsca - nagios passive check daemon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433547 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs(a)math.uh.edu 2008-03-18 17:56 EST ------- Xavier asked me to have a quick look. Sorry I couldn't get to it yesterday. A few meta-issues first: Xavier, if you indeed are reviewing this, you should assign the ticket to yourself and set the fedora-review flag to '?'. The summary of the ticket should match the submitted package name. Was it de I don't have any particular issues with the reviewer providing fixed packages, but Michael does need to respond to the stuff in comments 8 and 9 before this can move anywhere. I am unfamiliar with nagios and related software, so I can really only look at the basic packaging, which looks fine. I'm looking at the package linked in comment 9. The scriptlets aren't exactly the same as the recommended ones, but the differences are inconsequential. Do note, however, that the "|| :" bit only has an effect as the last executed command in a scriptlet; its sole purpose is to prevent the scriptlet from returning a nonzero exit code. Also note that I tend to just drop the bits of my review template that don't apply, such as debuginfo and compiler flag bits for a noarch package, and the GUI app bit for a non-gui app. They're just placeholders to remind me to check things when they apply. Finally, I see some source files that are obviously GPLv2+, and others (nsca.c, send_nsca.c) which say GPLv2. Someone should ping upstream and see if they intend GPLv2 only for the final product. Otherwise I don't think GPLv2+ is accurate for the license tag. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

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: nsca - nagios passive check daemon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433547 ------- Additional Comments From wart(a)kobold.org 2008-03-18 19:47 EST ------- Sorry for the silence. Xavier has pretty much been proactive in updating the review package as needed. If he'd like to become the primary maintainer and have me as a comaintainer, I'd be more than happy to hand this review over to him. In the meantime I'll ping upstream about the licensing issue. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

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: nsca - nagios passive check daemon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433547 ------- Additional Comments From xavier(a)bachelot.org 2008-04-01 11:10 EST ------- Wart, still around ? Did upstream get back to you wrt license ? Also, do you want me to fix the scriplets to be as in the guidelines ? I'd like to get this package built and released asap. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

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: nsca - nagios passive check daemon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433547 xavier(a)bachelot.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From xavier(a)bachelot.org 2008-04-02 04:47 EST ------- looks good, APPROVED. I'm willing to co-maintain this package for EPEL. I don't mind being comaintainer for Fedora too if you wish so. My username is xavierb. Cheers, Xavier -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

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: nsca - nagios passive check daemon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433547 kevin(a)tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ ------- Additional Comments From kevin(a)tummy.com 2008-04-03 16:19 EST ------- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.