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 214730 - Review Request: pungi - Distribution compose tool
Summary: Review Request: pungi - Distribution compose tool
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Patrice Dumas
QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: FE-ACCEPT
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2006-11-09 01:48 UTC by Jesse Keating
Modified: 2014-12-23 22:45 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2006-11-17 14:28:34 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
gwync: fedora-cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jesse Keating 2006-11-09 01:48:07 UTC 
Spec URL: http://linux.duke.edu/projects/pungi/?f=6e580939b460;file=pungi.spec;style=raw
SRPM URL: http://linux.duke.edu/projects/pungi/release/pungi-0.1.0-1.src.rpm
Description: A tool to create anaconda based installation trees/isos of a set of rpms.

rpmlint complains about non-executable scripts.  I have some code in the python modules that allows them to be executed on their own for testing.
Comment 1 Patrice Dumas 2006-11-09 09:19:32 UTC 
* name right
* follow packaging guidelines
* match uptream
6fab9b1b9979aa59b9db5880abfe6136  pungi-0.1.0.tar.gz
* sane provides:
Provides: config(pungi) = 0.1.0-1
* specfile simple and legible
* %files section right
* rpmlint says:
E: pungi non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/pypungi/pungi.py
0644
E: pungi non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/pypungi/splittree.py 0644
E: pungi non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/pypungi/gather.py 0644

This is ignorable, as you explained above. However wouldn't it make
sense to have wrapper around those scripts, named for example
pungi-gather or the like, wouldn't it make sense to call them
independently?
Comment 2 Patrice Dumas 2006-11-09 09:22:44 UTC 
The comment about wrappers is not a blocker, so it is

APPROVED
Comment 3 Patrice Dumas 2006-11-09 09:26:55 UTC 
Maybe you coule let one day for other reviewers to comment on
before importing, such that other people have time to raise concerns.
Comment 4 Jesse Keating 2006-11-09 13:46:21 UTC 
A wrapper doesn't quite make sense, since these are python modules.  If you
wanted just the functionality of gather, you'd probably use yumdownloader or
repotrack instead, or you'd import the pypungi.gather module into your python
script and use it there.  For pypungi.pungi, there is a bit more of a chance of
wanting to run it standalone, but since it is a module, you can do that (:

Anyconcerns raised can be fixed once I bring it in.

Built for devel, branch for FC-6 requested.
Comment 5 Patrice Dumas 2006-11-09 18:25:35 UTC 
(In reply to comment #4)
> A wrapper doesn't quite make sense, since these are python modules.  If you
> wanted just the functionality of gather, you'd probably use yumdownloader or
> repotrack instead, or you'd import the pypungi.gather module into your python
> script and use it there.  For pypungi.pungi, there is a bit more of a chance of
> wanting to run it standalone, but since it is a module, you can do that (:

Right.
Comment 6 Patrice Dumas 2006-11-17 14:11:19 UTC 
Shouldn't this bug be closed now?
Comment 7 Jesse Keating 2006-11-17 14:28:34 UTC 
Whoops, I was waiting for the push, that happened.
Comment 8 Kevin Fenzi 2006-12-06 03:35:51 UTC 
Jesse: I don't see this package in owners.list. Can you please add it?

See: 

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors#head-f6f080b4c48fe519c98a29364a740953f90179e7
Comment 10 Troy Dawson 2014-12-22 16:08:24 UTC 
Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: pungi
New Branches: epel7
Owners: tdawson
Comment 11 Gwyn Ciesla 2014-12-22 19:35:14 UTC 
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Comment 12 Dennis Gilmore 2014-12-23 22:45:42 UTC 
The proper procedure for branching a package for epel has not been followed and the request for the epel7 should never have been approved.
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.