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=220284
Summary: Review Request: bcfg2 - Configuration management client and server Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jeff@ocjtech.us QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/6/SRPMS/bcfg2-0.8.7.1-1.fc6.spec SRPM URL: http://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/6/SRPMS/bcfg2-0.8.7.1-1.fc6.src.rpm Description:
Bcfg2 helps system administrators produce a consistent, reproducible, and verifiable description of their environment, and offers visualization and reporting tools to aid in day-to-day administrative tasks.
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: bcfg2 - Configuration management client and server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220284
jeff@ocjtech.us changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |182235 nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From jeff@ocjtech.us 2006-12-20 01:07 EST ------- Note that this package hasn't been tested much (there's some rpmlint cruft that needs cleaning up), and the license needs reviewing. See:
http://trac.mcs.anl.gov/projects/bcfg2/browser/trunk/bcfg2/LICENSE
for the license and
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-December/msg00417.ht...
for some discussion.
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: bcfg2 - Configuration management client and server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220284
Axel.Thimm@ATrpms.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |Axel.Thimm@ATrpms.net OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 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: bcfg2 - Configuration management client and server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220284
------- Additional Comments From Axel.Thimm@ATrpms.net 2006-12-20 08:14 EST ------- Just for future reference rpmlint says
W: bcfg2 invalid-license BCFG Public License E: bcfg2 wrong-line-in-lsb-tag # installs configuration files served by bcfg2-server E: bcfg2 wrong-line-in-lsb-tag # This is a client that installs the server provided E: bcfg2 wrong-line-in-lsb-tag # Configuration. E: bcfg2 subsys-not-used /etc/rc.d/init.d/bcfg2 W: bcfg2-server invalid-license BCFG Public License E: bcfg2-server wrong-line-in-lsb-tag # installs configuration files served by bcfg2-server E: bcfg2-server subsys-not-used /etc/rc.d/init.d/bcfg2-server
The wrong-line-in-lsb-tag is due to continuation of the Description fields. I'm not sure whether rpmlint is wrong, or the init file. subsys-not-used: I wouldn't had marked it as and error in rpmlint, but maybe it's not a bad idea to add it to the init file.
rpm install is noisy, the openssl output should go to /dev/null. You need to reverse the order of 2>&1 and /dev/null.
The file /etc/bcfg2.key is unowned. That's like for openssh's keys, but perhaps not the best practice. Better own a dummy file, mark it as %config(noreplace), and overwrite it on first install. The key would remain in the rpmdb as a changed config file, so upgrades would not touch it and uninstalls would keep it as *.rpmsave. This is just a (very) weak suggestion, though.
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: bcfg2 - Configuration management client and server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220284
------- Additional Comments From jeff@ocjtech.us 2006-12-20 10:33 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2)
W: bcfg2 invalid-license BCFG Public License W: bcfg2-server invalid-license BCFG Public License
We're (Axel and I) working with the upstream on this issue.
E: bcfg2 wrong-line-in-lsb-tag # installs configuration files served by bcfg2-server E: bcfg2 wrong-line-in-lsb-tag # This is a client that installs the server provided E: bcfg2 wrong-line-in-lsb-tag # Configuration.
E: bcfg2-server wrong-line-in-lsb-tag # installs configuration files served by bcfg2-server
The wrong-line-in-lsb-tag is due to continuation of the Description fields. I'm not sure whether rpmlint is wrong, or the init file. subsys-not-used: I wouldn't had marked it as and error in rpmlint, but maybe it's not a bad idea to add it to the init file.
According to this:
http://www.freestandards.org/spec/booksets/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic...
the continuation of the Description field should be OK, so it looks like a bug in rpmlint.
E: bcfg2 subsys-not-used /etc/rc.d/init.d/bcfg2
The bcfg2 init script is a one-shot script - it doesn't actually start a server in the background so creating a file in /var/lock/subsys doesn't make sense.
E: bcfg2-server subsys-not-used /etc/rc.d/init.d/bcfg2-server
Fixed in the next release.
rpm install is noisy, the openssl output should go to /dev/null. You need to reverse the order of 2>&1 and /dev/null.
Turns out that runing openssh in %post to generate a key is not needed. The bcfg2-admin script will take care of generating the key.
The file /etc/bcfg2.key is unowned. That's like for openssh's keys, but perhaps not the best practice. Better own a dummy file, mark it as %config(noreplace), and overwrite it on first install. The key would remain in the rpmdb as a changed config file, so upgrades would not touch it and uninstalls would keep it as *.rpmsave. This is just a (very) weak suggestion, though.
/etc/bcfg2.key should be marked %ghost and %config(noreplace)
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: bcfg2 - Configuration management client and server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220284
------- Additional Comments From Axel.Thimm@ATrpms.net 2006-12-20 10:39 EST -------
/etc/bcfg2.key should be marked %ghost and %config(noreplace)
That may make the key be removed upon package removal, but I'm not 100% sure.
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: bcfg2 - Configuration management client and server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220284
------- Additional Comments From jeff@ocjtech.us 2006-12-20 10:43 EST ------- Spec URL: http://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/6/SRPMS/bcfg2-0.8.7.1-3.fc6.spec SRPM URL: http://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/6/SRPMS/bcfg2-0.8.7.1-3.fc6.src.rpm
* Wed Dec 20 2006 Jeffrey C. Ollie jeff@ocjtech.us - 0.8.7.1-3 - Don't generate SSL cert in post script, it only needs to be done on the server and is handled by the bcfg2-admin tool. - Move the /etc/bcfg2.key file to the server package - Don't install a sample copy of the config file, just ghost it - Require gamin-python for the server package - Don't require openssl - Make the client a separate package so you don't have to have the client if you don't want it
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: bcfg2 - Configuration management client and server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220284
------- Additional Comments From jeff@ocjtech.us 2006-12-20 10:46 EST ------- (In reply to comment #4)
/etc/bcfg2.key should be marked %ghost and %config(noreplace)
That may make the key be removed upon package removal, but I'm not 100% sure.
Here's what happens when you remove the -1 version:
[root@an00 ~]# rpm -e bcfg2 bcfg2-server warning: /etc/bcfg2.conf saved as /etc/bcfg2.conf.rpmsave [root@an00 ~]# ls /etc/bcfg2.* /etc/bcfg2.conf.rpmsave /etc/bcfg2.key
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: bcfg2 - Configuration management client and server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220284
Axel.Thimm@ATrpms.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From Axel.Thimm@ATrpms.net 2006-12-20 14:18 EST ------- Full review: o rpmlint output: OK
W: bcfg2 invalid-license BCFG Public License E: bcfg2 non-readable /etc/bcfg2.conf 0600 W: bcfg2-client invalid-license BCFG Public License E: bcfg2-client wrong-line-in-lsb-tag # installs configuration files served by bcfg2-server E: bcfg2-client wrong-line-in-lsb-tag # This is a client that installs the server provided E: bcfg2-client wrong-line-in-lsb-tag # Configuration. E: bcfg2-client subsys-not-used /etc/rc.d/init.d/bcfg2 W: bcfg2-client incoherent-init-script-name bcfg2 W: bcfg2-server invalid-license BCFG Public License E: bcfg2-server non-readable /etc/bcfg2.key 0600 E: bcfg2-server wrong-line-in-lsb-tag # installs configuration files served by bcfg2-server
invalid-license: may change to BSD, soon, anyway non-readable: rpmlint false positive wrong-line-in-lsb-tag: rpmlint false positive subsys-not-used: see Jeff's explenation above: non-daemon start script incoherent-init-script-name: OK
o package naming: OK o specfile name: OK o guidelines: OK o open-source compatible license: todo o license field: todo o license in source: todo o specfile in American English: OK o specfile legible: OK o sources match upstream: OK (md5sum, timestamps diverge) o successfully compiles: OK o excluding archs (none): OK o BRs complete: OK o locale: OK o ldconfig (none needed): OK o relocatable package (no): OK o dir ownership: OK o %files duplicates (none): OK o sane permissions on files: OK o %clean: OK o consistent use of macros: OK o contains code: OK o doc subpackage (not needed): OK o %doc influences package (no): OK o *.pc files (none): OK o shared libs (none): OK o devel dependencies (no devel): OK o *.la files (none): OK o *.desktop file (no guis): OK o cross-ownership (none): OK
The few todos are all about the new license which is about to be changed, so I'm preapproving on the assumption that upstream will switch to plain BSD licensing (according to our PM with the author). I'm also removing FE-LEGAL on the same assumption. :)
Irrelevant nitpicking: Is %{_localstatedir} not preferred over %{_var}?
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: bcfg2 - Configuration management client and server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220284
Axel.Thimm@ATrpms.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|182235 | 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: bcfg2 - Configuration management client and server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220284
------- Additional Comments From jeff@ocjtech.us 2006-12-27 15:05 EST ------- Here's the latest Spec/SRPM:
Spec URL: http://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/6/SRPMS/bcfg2-0.8.7.1-5.fc6.spec SRPM URL: http://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/6/SRPMS/bcfg2-0.8.7.1-5.fc6.src.rpm
I know that this has been approved but I want to wait until upstream pushes a new package that will be licenced according to the standard BSD license (which should happedn RSN).
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: bcfg2 - Configuration management client and server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220284
------- Additional Comments From jeff@ocjtech.us 2006-12-27 22:43 EST ------- Spec URL: http://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/6/SRPMS/bcfg2-0.8.7.3-1.fc6.spec SRPM URL: http://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/6/SRPMS/bcfg2-0.8.7.3-1.fc6.src.rpm
This is the new version of the package with the updated license...
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: bcfg2 - Configuration management client and server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220284
------- Additional Comments From Axel.Thimm@ATrpms.net 2006-12-28 08:37 EST ------- Reapproving :) 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: bcfg2 - Configuration management client and server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220284
------- Additional Comments From Axel.Thimm@ATrpms.net 2007-01-09 07:21 EST ------- Is there still any open issue with the package?
I think there was just the upstream request to package in accord to their subpackaging structure, which is up to you, both ways are fine. You can change the subpackaging also later, if you haven't made your mind 100% yet. I'd like to get this in, so it can be coevaluated with the other solutions. 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: bcfg2 - Configuration management client and server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220284
------- Additional Comments From jeff@ocjtech.us 2007-01-09 09:07 EST ------- (In reply to comment #11)
Is there still any open issue with the package?
I think the only question still remaining is the license.
http://trac.mcs.anl.gov/projects/bcfg2/browser/trunk/bcfg2/COPYRIGHT
I think that it's free enough to be included in Fedora, but I'm not sure that it's exactly the BSD licese.
I think there was just the upstream request to package in accord to their subpackaging structure, which is up to you, both ways are fine. You can change the subpackaging also later, if you haven't made your mind 100% yet. I'd like to get this in, so it can be coevaluated with the other solutions. Thanks!
Yeah, it doesn't matter to me much either way so I'll go along with upstream.
Spec URL: http://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/6/SRPMS/bcfg2-0.8.7.3-2.fc6.spec SRPM URL: http://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/6/SRPMS/bcfg2-0.8.7.3-2.fc6.src.rpm
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: bcfg2 - Configuration management client and server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220284
------- Additional Comments From Axel.Thimm@ATrpms.net 2007-01-09 15:07 EST ------- No, that's not the BSD license. But it is at least as free/open as the 3-term BSD license. It effectively looks like a BSD license with the non-endorsement term is missing.
I think we can consider it free enough, or do you want to get backup from fedora-extras?
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: bcfg2 - Configuration management client and server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220284
------- Additional Comments From Axel.Thimm@ATrpms.net 2007-02-02 20:58 EST ------- Could you please import this package? 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: bcfg2 - Configuration management client and server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220284
------- Additional Comments From Axel.Thimm@ATrpms.net 2007-02-15 16:10 EST ------- Please import this package. :(
Since there is more than a month of lack of submitter's feedback "a comment is added to the ticket indicating that the review is stalled and that a response is needed soon."
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: bcfg2 - Configuration management client and server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220284
jeff@ocjtech.us changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
------- Additional Comments From jeff@ocjtech.us 2007-02-15 17:12 EST ------- It's been imported and built for some time now, guess I forgot to close the ticket...
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: bcfg2 - Configuration management client and server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220284
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium
------- Additional Comments From icon@fedoraproject.org 2007-05-01 16:54 EST ------- Jeff: would you mind doing EPEL branches? If that's too much trouble, I'd gladly sign up for co-maintenance to take care of those.
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: bcfg2 - Configuration management client and server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220284
jeff@ocjtech.us changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
------- Additional Comments From jeff@ocjtech.us 2007-05-01 17:38 EST ------- (In reply to comment #17)
Jeff: would you mind doing EPEL branches? If that's too much trouble, I'd gladly sign up for co-maintenance to take care of those.
If you're willing to co-maintain, I'll take care of the initial setup. I don't run RHEL or CentOS so I'm unable to do testing/debugging on those platforms.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: bcfg2 New Branches: EL-4 EL-5 Updated EPEL Owners: jeff@ocjtech.us, icon@fedoraproject.org
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: bcfg2 - Configuration management client and server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220284
dennis@ausil.us changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
------- Additional Comments From dennis@ausil.us 2007-05-05 11:14 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: bcfg2 - Configuration management client and server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=220284
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Version|devel |rawhide
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla