8:24 p.m.
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4647
Bug ID: 4647
Summary: Review Request: unifi - Ubiquiti UniFi controller
Product: Package Reviews
Version: Current
Hardware: All
OS: GNU/Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P1
Component: Review Request
Assignee: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Reporter: hobbes1069(a)gmail.com
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
namespace: nonfree
SPEC: https://www.dropbox.com/s/dz2x7dlixt2qjju/unifi.spec
SRPM: https://www.dropbox.com/s/gfgqyl499neltph/unifi-5.5.20-2.fc26.src.rpm
Ubiquiti UniFi server is a centralized management system for UniFi suite of
devices. After the UniFi server is installed, the UniFi controller can be
accessed on any web browser. The UniFi controller allows the operator to
instantly provision thousands of UniFi devices, map out network topology,
quickly manage system traffic, and further provision individual UniFi devices.
This software can not go into the free repository as I have only been given
permission to package and redistribute. The source is not available and it also
contain pre-built binaries.
https://community.ubnt.com/t5/UniFi-Wireless/Unifi-Controller-software-li...
rpmlint output:
unifi.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Ubiquiti -> Ubiquity, Ubiquitous
unifi.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C UniFi
unifi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Ubiquiti -> Ubiquity,
Ubiquitous
unifi.src: W: invalid-license Proprietary
unifi.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.ubnt.com/unifi HTTP Error 404: Not
Found
unifi.src:84: E: use-of-RPM_SOURCE_DIR
unifi.src:115: W: macro-in-comment %ghost
unifi.src:144: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/firewalld/services
unifi.src:145: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/firewalld/services/
unifi.src:242: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/firewalld/services/%{name}.xml
unifi.src: W: no-%build-section
unifi.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Ubiquiti -> Ubiquity, Ubiquitous
unifi.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C UniFi
unifi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Ubiquiti -> Ubiquity,
Ubiquitous
unifi.x86_64: W: invalid-license Proprietary
unifi.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.ubnt.com/unifi HTTP Error 404: Not
Found
unifi.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share
/usr/share/unifi/lib/native/Linux/armhf/libubnt_webrtc_jni.so
unifi.x86_64: W: executable-stack
/usr/share/unifi/lib/native/Linux/armhf/libubnt_webrtc_jni.so
unifi.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share
/usr/share/unifi/lib/native/Linux/x86_64/libubnt_webrtc_jni.so
unifi.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/logrotate.d/unifi
unifi.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/unifi/bin/mongod /usr/bin/mongod
unifi.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/unifi/webapps/ROOT/app-unifi/.version
unifi.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/unifi unifi
unifi.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/unifi unifi
unifi.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/unifi/data unifi
unifi.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/unifi/data unifi
unifi.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/unifi/data/system.properties unifi
unifi.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/unifi/data/system.properties unifi
unifi.x86_64: E: non-readable /var/lib/unifi/data/system.properties 0
unifi.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/unifi/run unifi
unifi.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/unifi/run unifi
unifi.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/unifi/work unifi
unifi.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/unifi/work unifi
unifi.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/log/unifi unifi
unifi.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/log/unifi unifi
unifi.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%pre mv
unifi.x86_64: W: class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/unifi/lib/ace.jar
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 30 warnings.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
7:40 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 4647] Review Request: unifi - Ubiquiti UniFi controller
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4647
--- Comment #1 from Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com> ---
I expect you talked about the nonfree section since it's proprietary
(the namespace is set as appropriate).
You can use NoSource: 0 (After Source0) instead of using with conditional to
avoid producing src.rpm with the Source0 in it. (it will be named nosrc.rpm
instead).
Unfortunately, it will not work at all with mock since you expect the whole
content to be provided and even less with koji since it expect no internet
access (you might have access to the cache source at least).
To be tested on scratch build...
The other point is that you cannot have a different source/binary content. So
koji will now allows to build the binary with the .src.rpm once, then the
"nosrc.rpm" on the second build and only keep the former binary and the later
no source rpm.
About pre-built binaries.
You only need to use:
%define debug_package %{nil}
%define __strip /bin/true
Please avoid to redefine __os_install_post
Please drop # Selinux versioned requires
ExclusiveArch: x86_64 armv7hl
Uses: Requires: java > 1:1.8.0
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#BuildRequires_and_Requires
Why Conflicts: unifi-controller ? Can this be avoided ?
%ghost is availabe with EL6. I don't understand why you think it was not. What
is available with newer OS is that it does not require the file to be
pre-created (so you need to use touch for EL6).
%pre , you are probably missing the proper consition to only move the logs
files only on upgrade on installation. Why this move is needed probably need to
be stated as a comment.
It doesn't look acceptable to edit the selinux configuration on post
installation. First you need not to assume selinux might not run at all on the
end-user system. Second you should better the needed changes to the targeted
policy instead.
execstack need to be modified in %install step, not %post or you will break rpm
-V
About the init_t in permissive, this is not at all acceptable either. You are
really changing a system wide setting in the back of end-users.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1358476#c20
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
2:56 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 4647] Review Request: unifi - Ubiquiti UniFi controller
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4647
--- Comment #2 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Nicolas Chauvet from comment #1)
I expect you talked about the nonfree section since it's
proprietary
(the namespace is set as appropriate).
You can use NoSource: 0 (After Source0) instead of using with conditional to
avoid producing src.rpm with the Source0 in it. (it will be named nosrc.rpm
instead).
I changed the conditional to by default have the source within the SRPM.
Initially I had to default the other way until I was given permission to
distribute. I plan to remove the conditionals but some may find it useful to
upgrade sooner than I would update the package in RPM Fusion so it still has
some value.
About pre-built binaries.
You only need to use:
%define debug_package %{nil}
%define __strip /bin/true
Please avoid to redefine __os_install_post
I'm sure I added that for a reason but I can't remember at this point. I'll
test without it.
Please drop # Selinux versioned requires
I got this from here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SELinux_Policy_Modules_Packaging_Draft#Run...
I understand it's a draft, but does it not apply?
ExclusiveArch: x86_64 armv7hl
Uses: Requires: java > 1:1.8.0
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#BuildRequires_and_Requires
Updated to:
Requires: java--headless >= 1:1.8.0
Why Conflicts: unifi-controller ? Can this be avoided ?
There is another person providing unofficial packages which installs into /opt
and I don't want anyone to accidentally install both packages.
%ghost is availabe with EL6. I don't understand why you think it
was not.
What is available with newer OS is that it does not require the file to be
pre-created (so you need to use touch for EL6).
I'm sure I tried it and it didn't seem to work. I'll try again.
%pre , you are probably missing the proper consition to only move the
logs
files only on upgrade on installation. Why this move is needed probably need
to be stated as a comment.
In one of my earlier versions of the packages I didn't realize the logs were
being written to /usr/share/unifi/logs hence the migration logic. Since the
files won't be deleted on package removal I don't want to depend on only
running the script on upgrade.
It doesn't look acceptable to edit the selinux configuration on
post
installation. First you need not to assume selinux might not run at all on
the end-user system. Second you should better the needed changes to the
targeted policy instead.
So if I move that to install the policy changes will make it into the resultant
RPM? I'm assuming restorecon still needs to be in %post?
execstack need to be modified in %install step, not %post or you will
break
rpm -V
Again, same question. This will make it into the RPM?
About the init_t in permissive, this is not at all acceptable either.
You
are really changing a system wide setting in the back of end-users.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1358476#c20
What's the alternative? Seems better than telling everyone they have to run
selinux in permissive mode.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
3:19 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 4647] Review Request: unifi - Ubiquiti UniFi controller
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4647
--- Comment #3 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com> ---
I guess I can create a bash script and put it in /usr/sbin...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
8 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 4647] Review Request: unifi - Ubiquiti UniFi controller
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4647
--- Comment #4 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Nicolas Chauvet from comment #1)
%ghost is availabe with EL6. I don't understand why you think it
was not.
What is available with newer OS is that it does not require the file to be
pre-created (so you need to use touch for EL6).
Ok, I'm digging into this a bit more... If I have to "touch" the file so
that
it exists, doesn't that completely contradict the whole reason for using
%ghost?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
9:08 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 4647] Review Request: unifi - Ubiquiti UniFi controller
On 09/12/2017 04:00 PM, RPM Fusion Bugzilla wrote:
*Comment # 4 <https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4647#c4>
on bug 4647 <https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4647> from
Richard <mailto:hobbes1069@gmail.com> *
(In reply to Nicolas Chauvet from comment #1 <show_bug.cgi?id=4647#c1>)
> %ghost is availabe with EL6. I don't understand why you think it was not. >
What is available with newer OS is that it does not require the
file to be > pre-created (so you need to use touch for EL6).
Ok, I'm digging into this a bit more... If I have to "touch" the file so
that
it exists, doesn't that completely contradict the whole reason for using
%ghost?
This is what I have for the cjdns package in EPEL, it works for EL6, and
the SPEC file does not use touch. Maybe what Nicolas meant is that
*something* has to eventually create the file. In the case of cjdns, it
gets created when starting the service if it doesn't already exist.
%ghost %attr(0600,root,root) %config(missingok,noreplace)
%{_sysconfdir}/cjdroute.conf
9:31 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 4647] Review Request: unifi - Ubiquiti UniFi controller
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4647
--- Comment #5 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com> ---
I tried adding the "missingok" and commenting out the touch for EL6 but the
build failed.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
10:54 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 4647] Review Request: unifi - Ubiquiti UniFi controller
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4647
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik(a)greysector.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |dominik(a)greysector.net
--- Comment #6 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik(a)greysector.net>
---
(In reply to Richard from comment #4)
Ok, I'm digging into this a bit more... If I have to
"touch" the file so
that it exists, doesn't that completely contradict the whole reason for
using %ghost?
No, because the file will not be included in the binary RPM.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
11:34 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 4647] Review Request: unifi - Ubiquiti UniFi controller
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4647
--- Comment #7 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Nicolas Chauvet from comment #1)
It doesn't look acceptable to edit the selinux configuration on
post
installation. First you need not to assume selinux might not run at all on
the end-user system. Second you should better the needed changes to the
targeted policy instead.
Ok, I did what I had to do to get a working package, going through all the work
to create a policy file is over my head. The same draft guideline that shows
you how to do it is the same one that suggested the stuff you wanted me to
remove.
execstack need to be modified in %install step, not %post or you will
break
rpm -V
That doesn't appear to work...
+ execstack -c
/home/build/rpmbuild/unifi/BUILDROOT/unifi-5.5.20-4.fc26.x86_64/usr/share/unifi/lib/native/Linux/amd64/libubnt_webrtc_jni.so
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.o1jwU2 (%install)
About the init_t in permissive, this is not at all acceptable either.
You
are really changing a system wide setting in the back of end-users.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1358476#c20
I created a bash script to wrap the command.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
3:28 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 4647] Review Request: unifi - Ubiquiti UniFi controller
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4647
--- Comment #8 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com> ---
Ok, per Dan Walsh doing the selinux stuff in %post is acceptable, I can combine
the commands though.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
1:13 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 4647] Review Request: unifi - Ubiquiti UniFi controller
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4647
--- Comment #9 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com> ---
SPEC: https://www.dropbox.com/s/dz2x7dlixt2qjju/unifi.spec
SRPM: https://www.dropbox.com/s/rp7ud31vi0cjhbd/unifi-5.5.20-4.fc26.src.rpm
* Sat Sep 16 2017 Richard Shaw <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com> - 5.5.20-4
- Spec file cleanup per review request comments, RFBZ#4647.
- SELinux scripts now conditional if selinux policy is available.
- Removed nosrc option since it's no longer necessary.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
2467
days inactive
2666
days old
rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
38 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Nicolas Chauvet -
Richard Shaw -
RPM Fusion Bugzilla -
Stuart Gathman