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: Conga - Remote management interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197137 ------- Additional Comments From kupcevic@xxxxxxxxxx 2006-07-06 17:47 EST ------- Please check out version 0.8-7 (will publish on Friday, July, 7th 2006): Spec URL: http://sourceware.org/cluster/conga/extras/conga.spec SRPM URL: http://sourceware.org/cluster/conga/extras/conga-0.8-7.fc6.src.rpm * It would be better to split the package into several source packages (e.g., conga, luci, ricci, and cluster-*). That would probably also help expediting the review; when you do that, file separate review requests for each package - ricci, ricci-modcluster, cluster-cim and cluster-snmp build from the same source code, and has been split into several packages so that users can pick and choose what they need * Please run rpmlint on the generated packages and either fix the errors/warnings it generates, or explain here why you think they are ok to ignore - rpmlint output at the end * You shouldn't require /bin/bash, it's in the list of requirement exceptions (see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-4cadce5e79d38a63cad3941de1dadc9d25d67d30) - removed * The summary of the packages should be a short one-sentence description of each package. - added * There is no need to have a 'Provides: %name' for each package - removed * You shouldn't hardcode the distribution in the release tag; instead use '6{%?dist}' as the release - the build system will fill in the appropriate value (.fc5, .fc6 etc.) - fixed * Do not manually set _libdir on x86_64; it's automatically set to the right thing by rpm - rpmbuild used not to do that, not setting manually any more * Why does ricci have a number of 'Requires: ricci-xyz = version' and 'Provides: ricci-xyz' ? Shouldn't the provides be versioned, too ? There's no need for those requires - fixed rpmlint *rpm | grep -v non-standard-uid (both ricci and luci run under their own respective users): E: luci non-readable /var/lib/luci/var/Data.fs 0600 - Data.fs contains data that should be viewed by luci only E: luci non-executable-script /var/lib/luci/Extensions/ModelBuilder.py 0644 - python file with self-test function E: luci executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/luci - init script W: luci dangerous-command-in-%post chmod - rpm generates private ssl key, has to be readable by luci only E: ricci executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/ricci - init script E: ricci setuid-binary /usr/sbin/ricci-auth root 04755 E: ricci non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/ricci-auth 04755 - authentication helper; verifies root password against pam libraries, while ricci runs as non-root -> should be set-uid W: ricci dangerous-command-in-%post chown - rpm generates private ssl key, has to be readable by ricci only W: ricci service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/ricci - idea behind ricci is that after installation, luci connects to it, without any user interaction W: ricci-modcluster service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/ricci-modclusterd - same goes for cluster module E: ricci-modcluster executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/ricci-modclusterd - init script W: ricci-modcluster incoherent-init-script-name ricci-modclusterd -- 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-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review