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=193957
Summary: Review Request: nant Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: bugzilla-sink@leemhuis.info ReportedBy: paul@all-the-johnsons.co.uk QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://www.smmp.salford.ac.uk/packages/nant.spec SRPM URL: http://www.smmp.salford.ac.uk/packages/nant-0.85-1.src.rpm Description:
NAnt is a free .NET build tool which works in a very similar way to ant
This release is built using the 0.85.rc4 source tarball
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: nant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957
------- Additional Comments From paul@all-the-johnsons.co.uk 2006-06-03 19:29 EST ------- Spec URL: http://www.smmp.salford.ac.uk/packages/nant.spec SRPM URL: http://www.smmp.salford.ac.uk/packages/nant-0.85-2.src.rpm
Fixed a couple of problems in the spec file
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: nant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957
------- Additional Comments From paul@all-the-johnsons.co.uk 2006-06-04 09:38 EST ------- Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/nant.spec SRPM URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/nant-0.85-2.src.rpm
Change of URL
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: nant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957
------- Additional Comments From toshio@tiki-lounge.com 2006-06-06 23:57 EST ------- * You should split out a -docs subpackage. * The binaries are currently being installed in /usr/share which is plainly wrong.
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: nant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957
------- Additional Comments From paul@all-the-johnsons.co.uk 2006-06-07 06:11 EST ------- Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/nant.spec SRPM URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/nant-0.85-2.src.rpm
docs subpackage created debuginfo package removed (empty)
As to the /usr/share, that is where nant installs itself to by default with the make install with a symlink to %bindir. I'll need to think about how best to do this.
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: nant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957
------- Additional Comments From paul@all-the-johnsons.co.uk 2006-06-07 06:12 EST ------- http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/nant-0.85-3.src.rpm
D'oh!
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: nant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957
------- Additional Comments From paul@all-the-johnsons.co.uk 2006-06-07 10:37 EST ------- I'm going to refer this upstream - the package is correct in where it's putting things - they just happen to be in the wrong place!
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: nant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957
------- Additional Comments From toshio@tiki-lounge.com 2006-06-07 11:09 EST ------- After sleeping on this, I'm not certain datadir is definitely wrong. Java puts jar files into /usr/share. I believe PEs are portable to different architectures but I'm not certain. I'm going to ask on fedora-devel or fedora-maintainers to see whether Core packagers have reached a concensus on where mono apps should go.
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: nant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957
toshio@tiki-lounge.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |toshio@tiki-lounge.com
------- Additional Comments From toshio@tiki-lounge.com 2006-06-07 12:56 EST ------- Talked with caillon via IRC who says that all of /usr/lib/mono should move to /usr/share/mono at some point. So %{_datadir} nant would appear to be doing the right thing and will be followd by the rest of mono at some point.
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: nant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957
------- Additional Comments From paul@all-the-johnsons.co.uk 2006-06-08 04:08 EST ------- I'm not sure on the advisability of moving all of the mono stuff to %{_datadir}, but I will carry on watching upstream and see what happens, though I can't see there being much enthusiasm for such a change.
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: nant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957
------- Additional Comments From paul@all-the-johnsons.co.uk 2006-06-09 17:22 EST ------- Given #8, can this package be formally reviewed?
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: nant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957
------- Additional Comments From toshio@tiki-lounge.com 2006-06-09 19:09 EST ------- I have to look at the libdir issue some more this weekend first.
Also tibbs has asked spot to look into what kind of formal guidelines would make sense for mono applications as well. So far there's been discussion about redefining %{_libdir}, whether %{_datadir} vs /usr/lib is something worth waiting for, and the security issues WRT .dlls distributed by a project that is not its upstream. If you have any guideline ideas or whatnot, it would be good to email fedora-extras or jump into fedora-extras IRC to discuss them. I'm pretty sure that with some more formal guidelines there will be more people willing to review mono packages.
The libdir thing is so hacky that a lot of people just don't know what would be a good idea with mono and what would not. I'm willing to look at it. But understanding the underlying issues and trying to figure out whether redefining libdir is really needed and what other methods might be applied to fixing things has to come before I can do a competent job of reviewing.
It would really suck if a whole slew of mono apps were approved now and we had to chase them all down and fix them later. And it would really suck if some of the other mono packagers weren't as conscientious as you about fixing things once issues were brought up and we had packages needing fixes sitting around the repository for years.
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: nant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957
------- Additional Comments From paul@all-the-johnsons.co.uk 2006-06-10 03:18 EST ------- I was extras IRC last night and the view was that it's mess. Some mono stuff has to be platform specific, while libs should be noarch. The problem with that though is that there are lots of exceptions to the rules.
An example is f-spot. It's a mix of C and C#. For my packages, gtksourceview-sharp would be noarch, but those built on it might be.
Someone did mention they should be treated the same as jar files, but again, some applications (such as azerus) are defined as being architecture specific.
If you can bare the horror of looking at a SuSE spec file, you'll see that they basically just noarch everything which will, by default, place everything in /usr/lib rather than lib64.
I personally am unhappy with having binaries as noarch as to me, noarch should be scripts (perl etc), pictures, audio files and text - material which doesn't care what the architecture is.
I await spot on this one.
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: nant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957
paul@city-fan.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |177580 nThis| |
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: nant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957
paul@city-fan.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |177580 nThis| |
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: nant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957
paul@city-fan.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|177580 | nThis| |
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: nant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957
david@lovesunix.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |189092 nThis| |
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: nant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957
------- Additional Comments From jpmahowald@gmail.com 2006-07-08 17:58 EST ------- Mono packaging guidelines say to put in arch dependent, however, basically %_libdir. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Mono In this case it seems to be portable but since we have to allow for native compilation it's going into arch dependent.
My attempt at forcing %_libdir: http://fedorared.org/~john/review/nant-0.85-4.src.rpm
Note the hack to substiute in %_lib. It does make this self-building thing install to /usr/lib64 on x86_64, however.
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: nant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957
------- Additional Comments From paul@all-the-johnsons.co.uk 2006-07-08 18:55 EST ------- Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/nant.spec SRPM URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/nant-0.85-4.src.rpm
Tested and looking good. I've built boo against it and that seems happy.
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: nant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957
------- Additional Comments From jpmahowald@gmail.com 2006-07-08 19:10 EST ------- Almost there.
nant-0.85-4.src.rpm
On nant-docs: * Missing dependancy on scrollkeeper-update for %post (package scrollkeeper) * Missing dependancy on scrollkeeper-update for %postun (package scrollkeeper)
rpmlint: W: nant non-standard-group Development/Other Suggest Development/Tools
W: nant strange-permission nant-0.85-rc4-src.tar.gz 0666 W: nant strange-permission nant.spec 0666 Ignore.
E: nant non-utf8-spec-file nant.spec file says nant.spec: ISO-8859 Java program text. Save as utf8.
W: nant rpm-buildroot-usage %build export MONO_PATH=%{buildroot}/lib E: nant hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/lib Needed, as far as I can tell. Ignore.
E: nant no-binary Ignore.
E: nant only-non-binary-in-usr-lib Assemblies and such. Ignore.
W: nant wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/nant-0.85/license.html W: nant wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/nant-0.85/COPYING.txt W: nant wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/nant-0.85/README.txt W: nant wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/nant-0.85/releasenotes.html
And everything from nant-docs has wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding. Optionally fix these.
- package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (GPL) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86_64) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - -docs package - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file
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: nant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957
------- Additional Comments From paul@all-the-johnsons.co.uk 2006-07-08 20:09 EST ------- Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/nant.spec SRPM URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/nant-0.85-5.src.rpm
All of the fixes as required in #12
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: nant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957
jpmahowald@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink@leemhuis.info |jpmahowald@gmail.com OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From jpmahowald@gmail.com 2006-07-09 17:41 EST ------- You can also optionally fix the end of line on every other file in the package.
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: nant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957
paul@all-the-johnsons.co.uk changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
------- Additional Comments From paul@all-the-johnsons.co.uk 2006-07-09 17:50 EST ------- Thanks :-)
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: nant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957
moschny@ipd.uni-karlsruhe.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |NOTABUG
------- Additional Comments From moschny@ipd.uni-karlsruhe.de 2006-07-19 08:58 EST ------- A small problem with nant-0.85-5.src.rpm rebuilt on fc5: /usr/bin/nant tries to call /var/tmp/nant-0.85-5fc5-root-user/usr/lib/NAnt/bin/NAnt.exe.
This small patch fixes it:
--- nant.spec.orig 2006-07-09 02:06:41.000000000 +0200 +++ nant.spec 2006-07-19 14:57:55.000000000 +0200 @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ %install rm -rf %{buildroot} %makeinstall -sed -i -e "s#%buildroot##" %buildroot%_bindir/%name +sed -i -e "s#%{buildroot}##" %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{name} find examples -name *.dll -o -name *.exe|xargs rm -f rm -rf %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/NAnt/doc
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: nant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957
ville.skytta@iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|NOTABUG |NEXTRELEASE
------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta@iki.fi 2006-07-19 11:41 EST ------- (In reply to comment #16)
A small problem with nant-0.85-5.src.rpm rebuilt on fc5: /usr/bin/nant tries to call /var/tmp/nant-0.85-5fc5-root-user/usr/lib/NAnt/bin/NAnt.exe.
That's not a small problem, it's an arbitrary command execution vulnerability. Please install fedora-rpmdevtools and add check-buildroot and friends to your ~/.rpmmacros (eg. using fedora-buildrpmtree), it catches errors like this:
[...] + /usr/lib/rpm/check-buildroot /var/tmp/nant-0.85-5-buildroot-scop/usr/bin/nant:exec /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/../../bin/mono /var/tmp/nant-0.85-5-buildroot-scop/usr/lib64/NAnt/bin/NAnt.exe "$@" Found '/var/tmp/nant-0.85-5-buildroot-scop' in installed files; aborting error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.42428 (%install)
The same problem is in the package released in devel. Filed as bug 199432.
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: nant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957
------- Additional Comments From tibbs@math.uh.edu 2006-07-19 11:52 EST ------- How can I get check-buildroot to run within mock?
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: nant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957
------- Additional Comments From paul@all-the-johnsons.co.uk 2006-07-19 15:30 EST ------- Thanks. I'll check onto the cause and patch it up.
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: nant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957
paul@all-the-johnsons.co.uk changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |NEW Keywords| |Reopened Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |
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: nant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957
paul@all-the-johnsons.co.uk changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org