Files and files packaging

[FaramosCZ]

'fedora-review' tool report for build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mschorm/MaxScale/build/7989397/

[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /etc/prelink.conf.d [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/prelink.conf.d

[ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.

[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. systemd requires

[ ]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files

rpmlint: maxscale.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/maxscale.1.gz maxscale.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/bin/maxscale

[markus456]

The missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid was filed as MXS-5227 and will be fixed in the upcoming 21.06.17 release of MaxScale.

The spurious-executable-perm warning will be fixed by commit 61561dd29729f6ab0a9e2e71d47fd13e6a7e6d34 that was done as a part of MXS-5225, similarly fixed for 21.06.17.

The warning about /etc/prelink.conf.d/ can be solved by simply removing the file, it's no longer needed now that maxctrl uses the system nodejs and the use of prelink on it does nothing. I filed MXS-5247 for this issue and I'd expect it to be fixed in the next release after 21.06.17. The downstream patch for this for the 21.06.17 release is to simply: rm /etc/prelink.conf.d/maxscale.conf

The font files are potentially from the GUI which is something that needs to be investigated.

There is a GUI in MaxScale but it's the administrative interface that's accessible by browser only. For this reason I wouldn't count MaxScale as a GUI application and I'd say the following is thus not applicable:

[ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.

As for this part:

[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
systemd requires

I wonder what exactly this means? The package does include a systemd unit file and it even gets installed.

[FaramosCZ]

Great!

I've added the fix for the systemd https://github.com/FaramosCZ/MaxScale_fedora_package/commit/afc68917f7fe6144b53f9c427c8907458d0e0b1d

And few other tweaks.

---

There is a GUI in MaxScale but it's the administrative interface that's accessible by browser only. For this reason I wouldn't count MaxScale as a GUI application

Sounds good to me.

---

It seems the last thing in this issue is the fonts.

├── fonts
│   ├── codicon.a1cef3d5.ttf
│   ├── materialicons.0509ab09.woff2
│   ├── materialiconsoutlined.ab5291b7.woff2
│   ├── materialiconsround.e6f6ee20.woff2
│   ├── materialiconssharp.05aced73.woff2
│   └── materialiconstwotone.f62e0278.woff2

Fedora seems to have at least some of them: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/material-icons-fonts

[markus456]

The codicon font doesn't seem to exist in Fedora, how are cases like these handled?

[mariadb-ThienLy]

Great!

I've added the fix for the systemd afc6891

And few other tweaks.

There is a GUI in MaxScale but it's the administrative interface that's accessible by browser only. For this reason I wouldn't count MaxScale as a GUI application

Sounds good to me.

It seems the last thing in this issue is the fonts.

├── fonts
│   ├── codicon.a1cef3d5.ttf
│   ├── materialicons.0509ab09.woff2
│   ├── materialiconsoutlined.ab5291b7.woff2
│   ├── materialiconsround.e6f6ee20.woff2
│   ├── materialiconssharp.05aced73.woff2
│   └── materialiconstwotone.f62e0278.woff2

Fedora seems to have at least some of them: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/material-icons-fonts

We’re using material icon fonts from a different vendor: Pictogrammers rather than Google’s. Would it be acceptable to inline these fonts into JS files instead of keeping them as separate files?