Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: clamav-exim - Clam AV support files for Exim https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181450 ------- Additional Comments From orion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-02-15 17:23 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > Thanks very much for the review. I should have mentioned that I knew rpmlint > barfed lots, mostly due to this being a very weird package. Yeah, we'll have to muddle through... :-) > > W: clamav-exim no-documentation > > There are no docs, though maybe I should write a short README. I think that would be good - explicitly stating the license as well as a copy of the GPL. > > E: clamav-exim incoherent-logrotate-file /etc/logrotate.d/clamd.exim > > Is this the filename (i.e. clamd.exim) that it's complaining about? If so, I > know it's not the same as the package but the convention wasn't invented by me > but does make sense. I think you need to use clamd-exim here and elsewhere (init.d). "." usually implies a meaningful suffix. > > E: clamav-exim non-standard-uid /var/run/clamd.exim clamexim > > E: clamav-exim non-standard-gid /var/run/clamd.exim exim > > E: clamav-exim non-standard-dir-perm /var/run/clamd.exim 0750 > > E: clamav-exim non-standard-gid /var/log/clamd.exim exim > > I don't really understand these; the uid/gid/perms are intended and correct. > Yeah, looks like this is what clamav does. > > E: clamav-exim non-root-group-log-file /var/log/clamd.exim exim > > So, clamexim.root then? Howveer, users in the "exim" group might conceivably > want read-access to the logs. Well, others seem to do this too, and seems sensible. > > W: clamav-exim dangerous-command-in-%post chmod > > ^ If you really need a log file, perhaps create in %install? > > I could do. However, this stuff all came from the original spec fragments that > were checked into the clamav package by David Woodhouse (dwmw2@redhat). Given > that David is more experienced than me I was deferring to his judgement. Any > other thoughts from others would be welcome. Okay, looks like this is what clamav spec does too. > > E: clamav-exim init-script-name-with-dot /etc/rc.d/init.d/clamd.exim > > See above discussion about the clamd.exim convention. Yeah, should be clamd-exim > > E: clamav-exim no-status-entry /etc/rc.d/init.d/clamd.exim > > W: clamav-exim no-reload-entry /etc/rc.d/init.d/clamd.exim > > E: clamav-exim subsys-not-used /etc/rc.d/init.d/clamd.exim > > These are all bogus considering that the init script is essentially just a > pointer to the main clamav one. > > > W: clamav-exim incoherent-init-script-name clamd.exim > > See above discusion about the clamd.exim convention. > > > license (GPL) OK, need text in %doc. > > Well, there is no text "upstream" (because there isn't an upstream) so this > isn't essential. > > > No upstream, is this okay? > > Well, there's no upstream to have, this package is really not much more than > metadata for packaging consistency I'll ask some questions on the list. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
