Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=494171 --- Comment #9 from Adel Gadllah <adel.gadllah@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-04-08 18:28:22 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) > > Yes it does, so what? ;) (has nothing to do on how it is packaged, it will > > complain if you don't run it as root). > > > > Moved the files to /usr/sbin/ instead of /usr/bin/ to make this more clear. > I thought about priviledge separation, like some daemons do. If hostapd > supported that in its configuration files, or command line, adding an user > would have been beneficial. It needs access to the kernel interfaces which are only available to root. > >> * Build packages with separate user accounts: not-OK ;) > > ??? > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Build_packages_with_separate_user_accounts > My wild guess was that you didn't build the package as the separate user, > because there was a rather generic username set as owner of the files in the > SRPM ;). ... whatever --- New spec & srpm: http://193.200.113.196/apache2-default/rpm/hostapd.spec http://193.200.113.196/apache2-default/rpm/hostapd-0.6.9-0.3.20090405gita0b2f99.fc10.src.rpm Changed the license to BSD. "These program is dual-licensed under both the GPL version 2 and BSD license. Either license may be used at your option." As we build against openssl (which license is not compatible with the GPLv2) I opted for BSD. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review