https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232203 --- Comment #8 from Andrew Heath <aheath1992@xxxxxxxxx> --- Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/aheath1992/public_git/receptor.git/tree/receptor.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/aheath1992/public_git/receptor.git/tree/receptor-1.4.1-1.fc38.src.rpm Description: Receptor is an overlay network intended to ease the distribution of work across a large and dispersed collection of workers. Receptor nodes establish peer-to-peer connections with each other via existing networks. Once connected, the Receptor mesh provides datagram (UDP-like) and stream (TCP-like) capabilities to applications, as well as robust unit-of-work handling with resiliency against transient network failures. Fedora Account System Username: aheath1992 > 1. Non blockery, but might submit these upstream if they don't already have them in progress? > INFO: No upstream for (Source10): receptor_tmp.conf > INFO: No upstream for (Source9): receptor.logrotate > INFO: No upstream for (Source8): receptor.sysusers > INFO: No upstream for (Source7): receptor.pp > INFO: No upstream for (Source6): receptor.conf.example > INFO: No upstream for (Source5): receptor.conf > INFO: No upstream for (Source4): receptor@.service > INFO: No upstream for (Source3): receptor.service I can put in a issue request for some of these files but looking all receptor provides it the compiled receptor binary on github, the otherfiles are from the Red Hat version of receptor or I created for the RPM > 2. Please own /etc/receptor directory > You still need to do this. ;) In files you need to list /etc/receptor as a %dir, > or just list it and don't list the 2 config files in it. Done: @@ -252,6 +251,7 @@ popd %doc docs tools README.md %attr(0755,receptor,receptor) %{_bindir}/receptor %{_datadir}/selinux/packages/receptor.pp +%dir %{_sysconfdir}/receptor %config(noreplace) %attr(0644,receptor,receptor) %{_sysconfdir}/receptor/receptor.conf %config(noreplace) %attr(0644,receptor,receptor) %{_sysconfdir}/receptor/receptor.conf.example %{_unitdir}/receptor.service > 3. Can different versions of the 3 packages all operate ok? > If not, it might be safer to require the exact version on all of them. > ie, Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}, instead of > just requiring the name. > So, should we require the exact same versions of the subpackages, or not? > ie, if you have: > python3-receptor-python-worker-1.4.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm > receptor-1.4.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm > receptorctl-1.4.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm > all installed, great, but then 1.5.0 comes out and you just upgrade > python3-receptor-python-worker-1.5.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm > will that break the other two packages? I suspect strongly so. > If so, then we need to require the exact same version on all of them to make sure > rpm/dnf won't upgrade just one of them and break all of them. I have added the version matching for the receptor rpm, in my testing receptor and recepotrctl were able to work on different versions, but just to be safe I have added the version matching: <pre><span style="color:#2AA1B3">@@ -128,9 +128,8 @@</span> BuildRequires: openssl BuildRequires: systemd-rpm-macros %{?sysusers_requires_compat} <span style="color:#C01C28">-Requires: receptorctl</span> <span style="color:#C01C28">-Requires: python3-receptor-python-worker</span> <span style="color:#C01C28">-Requires: sos</span> <span style="color:#26A269">+Requires: receptorctl%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}</span> <span style="color:#26A269">+Requires: python3-receptor-python-worker%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}</span> Requires: logrotate Requires(post): libselinux-utils, policycoreutils </pre> > 4. receptor.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/receptor /lib64/libresolv.so.2 > Should this really be linked with -lresolv? > Did you find anything out about this one? I was not able to find out anything about the item, not sure where to start or what I would need to patch to get it resolved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232203 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202232203%23c8 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
