5:06 a.m.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: ap-utils - Configure and monitor Wireless Access Points
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469548
Summary: Review Request: ap-utils - Configure and monitor
Wireless Access Points
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: fabian(a)bernewireless.net
QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: notting(a)redhat.com, fedora-package-review(a)redhat.com
Estimated Hours: 0.0
Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/ap-utils.spec
SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/ap-utils-1.5-1.fc9.src.rpm
Project URL: http://ap-utils.polesye.net/
Description:
Wireless Access Point Utilities for Unix - it's a set of utilities to
configure and monitor Wireless Access Points under Unix using SNMP
and tftp protocol.
* ap-config - to config and get stats from Atmel-MIB based APs and
devices that support IEEE 802.11 MIB and NWN DOT11EXT MIB
* ap-gl - to config and get stats from Atmel-MIB based APs with
1.4k.2 firmware
* ap-tftp - command line utility to upgrade AP firmare over tftp
* ap-auth - command line utility to work with mac auth
* ap-mrtg - to get stat from AP and return it in MRTG parsable format
* ap-rrd - to get stat from AP and save it into RRD database
* ap-trapd - to receive, parse, and log trap messages from AP
Koji scratch builds:
F9: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=914639
F10: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=914644
rpmlint output:
[fab@laptop024 i386]$ rpmlint ap-*
ap-utils.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/ap-config
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
There is nothing for a devel package.
[fab@laptop024 SRPMS]$ rpmlint ap-*
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
--
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.
4:17 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 469548] Review Request: ap-utils - Configure and monitor Wireless Access Points
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=469548
Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |leamas.alec(a)gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com> 2008-11-21 05:17:29 EDT
---
Hi!
I promised to make yet another review...
Summary: OK besides some missing document files. A question mark on
all the compiler warnigs when building, though.
MUST stuff:
rpmlint must be run on every package...
- OK (No errors or warnings on srpm or spec file.)
The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
- OK
The spec file name must match the base package %{name},
- OK
The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
- OK.
The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license...
- OK
The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
- OK (some files have GPLv+ notices, but GPLv2 is the common denominator).
The text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc
- OK
The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
- OK
The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source
- OK (ebdb2a03302648c939ac965617de2889)
The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms.
- OK, on my Fedora 9/X86_64 box. Lots of compiler warnings " warning:
pointer targets in assignment differ in signedness" while building."
for constructs with a short and a literal #define int.
Seems acceptable to me. (Upstream report?)
All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
- OK (since mock is OK, see below)
The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
- OK
Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files
- NA
If the package is designed to be relocatable...
- NA
A package must own all directories that it creates
- NOK. The %doc section lists Documentation/*.html Documentation/FAQ
but these are not present at all in the generated RPM.
A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
- OK
Permissions on files must be set properly
- OK
Each package must have a %clean section, rm -rf %{buildroot}
- OK
Each package must consistently use macros...
- OK
The package must contain code, or permissable content.
- OK
Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage
- TBD (Havn't seen those HTML files yet).
If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present
- OK
Header files must be in a -devel package.
- NA
Static libraries must be in a -static package.
- NA
Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must...
- NA
If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1
- NA
If a package contains library files with a suffix...
- NA
devel packages must require the base package using...
- NA
Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives
- OK
Packages containing GUI applications...
- NA (ncurses apps are not considered being graphical)
Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages
- OK
At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
- OK
All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
- OK
SHOULD
- The upstream license file (GPLv2) is present.
- Localized descriptions are not available what I can see.
- Builds OK in mock, on a Fedora-9/x86_64 configuration
- There are no scriptlets.
- All apps works to the point of a help message or an initial
ncurses screen.
- There are no subpackages, pkgconfig .pc file or file deps.
--
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.
5:52 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 469548] Review Request: ap-utils - Configure and monitor Wireless Access Points
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=469548
--- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter <fabian(a)bernewireless.net> 2008-12-01 06:52:22
EDT ---
Thanks for the review. I will fix the open issues in the next days.
--
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.
7:04 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 469548] Review Request: ap-utils - Configure and monitor Wireless Access Points
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=469548
--- Comment #3 from Fabian Affolter <fabian(a)bernewireless.net> 2008-12-06 08:04:24
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms.
- OK, on my Fedora 9/X86_64 box. Lots of compiler warnings " warning:
pointer targets in assignment differ in signedness" while building."
for constructs with a short and a literal #define int.
Seems acceptable to me. (Upstream report?)
I have seen those warning but I don't know to fix them. I sent a message to
their mailing list. Waiting for an answer.
A package must own all directories that it creates
- NOK. The %doc section lists Documentation/*.html Documentation/FAQ
but these are not present at all in the generated RPM.
[fab@laptop024 i386]$ rpmls ap-utils-1.5-1.fc9.i386.rpm
-rwxr-xr-x /usr/bin/ap-auth
-rwxr-xr-x /usr/bin/ap-config
-rwxr-xr-x /usr/bin/ap-gl
-rwxr-xr-x /usr/bin/ap-mrtg
-rwxr-xr-x /usr/bin/ap-rrd
-rwxr-xr-x /usr/bin/ap-tftp
-rwxr-xr-x /usr/sbin/ap-trapd
drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/doc/ap-utils-1.5
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/ap-utils-1.5/ABOUT-NLS
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/ap-utils-1.5/AUTHORS
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/ap-utils-1.5/COPYING
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/ap-utils-1.5/ChangeLog
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/ap-utils-1.5/FAQ <---
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/ap-utils-1.5/NEWS
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/ap-utils-1.5/Ovislink-HOWTO.html <---
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/ap-utils-1.5/README
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/ap-utils-1.5/THANKS
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/ap-utils-1.5/TODO
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/locale/fr/LC_MESSAGES/ap-utils.mo
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/locale/nl/LC_MESSAGES/ap-utils.mo
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/locale/pl/LC_MESSAGES/ap-utils.mo
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/locale/ro/LC_MESSAGES/ap-utils.mo
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/locale/tr/LC_MESSAGES/ap-utils.mo
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/locale/uk/LC_MESSAGES/ap-utils.mo
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/man/man8/ap-auth.8.gz
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/man/man8/ap-config.8.gz
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/man/man8/ap-gl.8.gz
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/man/man8/ap-mrtg.8.gz
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/man/man8/ap-tftp.8.gz
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/man/man8/ap-trapd.8.gz
Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage
- TBD (Havn't seen those HTML files yet).
see above. It's only one html file.
--
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.
3:10 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 469548] Review Request: ap-utils - Configure and monitor Wireless Access Points
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=469548
Fabian Affolter <fabian(a)bernewireless.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Blocks| |201449(FE-DEADREVIEW)
Resolution| |NOTABUG
--- Comment #4 from Fabian Affolter <fabian(a)bernewireless.net> 2009-07-09 16:10:21
EDT ---
No answer about the compiler warnings. The upstream project seems to be
inactive. I will leave the spec file and the SRPM in place for a while.
--
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.
5445
days inactive
5694
days old
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
4 comments
1 participants
participants (1)
-
Red Hat Bugzilla