Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 178951
Summary: | Review Request: environment-modules - Provides dynamic modification of a user's environment | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Orion Poplawski <orion> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Ed Hill <ed> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | David Lawrence <dkl> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-extras-list |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
URL: | http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/ | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2006-02-14 22:54:07 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 163779 |
Description
Orion Poplawski
2006-01-25 18:04:51 UTC
It might be proper to mention why modules is popular in its description since few may know about it: When you have several versions of the same software, in a mixed POSIX environment, but still have the same home directory for all these POSIX system, you need to be able to switch between the different versions of the software by altering the system path. Modules solves this. Administrators put in different versions and releases of software at different paths (typically on a fileserver), configures modules with the paths and then let the user switch in and out the different versions and releases for the currently running operating system from the command line. Hi Orion, I really don't know what to say in regards to the default initialization of modules. Some may view it as helpful while others may think its an annoyance. Since you're packaging it, I think you should get some leeway in deciding whats appropriate. And heres a quick review: good: + source matches upstream + specfile is legible and looks sane + license is correct (GPL) according to the upstream web site but no license is included in the source + builds in mock on FC4 + permissions and dir ownership look OK + code not content nits: - Why the "--disable-versioning" flag? IMHO, its a pretty cool and useful feature. - Please consider naming the package "environment-modules" instead of just "modules" since it is the upstream project name (the "Environment Modules Project") and its a lot less ambiguous. The name "modules" gets used for all sorts of stuff including kernel modules and perhaps a more descriptive name can help avoid some confusion for new users? Its just a suggestion, though. - rpmlint reports: E: modules script-without-shellbang /usr/share/Modules/init/tcsh E: modules script-without-shellbang /usr/share/Modules/init/bash W: modules hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/Modules/init/.modulespath E: modules script-without-shellbang /usr/share/Modules/init/.modulespath E: modules script-without-shellbang /usr/share/Modules/init/csh E: modules script-without-shellbang /usr/share/Modules/init/zsh E: modules script-without-shellbang /usr/share/Modules/init/python E: modules script-without-shellbang /usr/share/Modules/init/perl E: modules script-without-shellbang /usr/share/Modules/init/sh E: modules script-without-shellbang /usr/share/Modules/init/ksh but I agree that these can probably be safely ignored - Please consider either adding the paper: http://modules.sourceforge.net/docs/MC2_whitney_paper.pdf to the documentation or adding a brief REAME-style link to the homepage and the paper since its very helpful and well- written document. Exactly the sort of thing new users should read! (In reply to comment #2) > Hi Orion, I really don't know what to say in regards to the default > initialization of modules. Some may view it as helpful while others > may think its an annoyance. Since you're packaging it, I think you > should get some leeway in deciding whats appropriate. I'm going with initialization by default. Seems to go with the extras idea - if you install the software you want to use it. > nits: > - Why the "--disable-versioning" flag? IMHO, its a pretty > cool and useful feature. configuring for Modules 3.2.0 2006-01-17 configure: error: You can not have versioning if --exec-prefix is specified must disable with --disable-versioning What is versioning useful for with modules? Note that this is not the standard --enable-versioning configure option stuff (I think). > - Please consider naming the package "environment-modules" > instead of just "modules" since it is the upstream project > name (the "Environment Modules Project") and its a lot less > ambiguous. The name "modules" gets used for all sorts of > stuff including kernel modules and perhaps a more descriptive > name can help avoid some confusion for new users? Its just > a suggestion, though. But "modules" seems to be the accepted shorthand and that is what the tar file is called. > - Please consider either adding the paper: > > http://modules.sourceforge.net/docs/MC2_whitney_paper.pdf > > to the documentation or adding a brief REAME-style link to > the homepage and the paper since its very helpful and well- > written document. Exactly the sort of thing new users should > read! > I'd rather keep the package size down. It's on the project home page. http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/modules-3.2.0-2.src.rpm Okay, so it looks like "modules" is obsoleted by module-init-tools, so I've changed the name to environment-modules. Looks like upstream is missing a copy of the GPL with the tarball, so I'm sending a message about fixing that. OK, thats cool. And I'd like to withdraw my request for the inclusion of the paper (last part of comment #3) because its not released under any clear license/copyright plus its content not code. So the only thing thats going to be changed is the package name, right? If so, just point me towards a new SRPM and I'll take a quick (hopefully last!) look. Updated version: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/modules-3.2.0p1-1.src.rpm I'm getting a 404 from the URL in comment #6 above. Also, I thought that (per comment #4) the package name was going to change from "modules" to "environment-modules" ? Not to be excessively picky, but the above URL should be "s/rppm/rpm/" and it took me a few minutes to see why I was still getting 404s. :-) Hi Orion, it appears that you've addressed all the comments, the latest SRPM just built cleanly for me in mock (FC4 i386), and I don't see any remaining blockers. APPROVED. - checked in - added to owners.list - builds on devel |