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: arpwatch - Network monitoring tools for tracking IP addresses on a network https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213832 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus@xxxxxxx 2006-11-09 14:20 EST ------- (In reply to comment #10) > The snmpwalk non-requirement looks to me like a non issue because user running > the arpfetch command will get a message snmpwalk not found if it is not there. That's what I call broken. A user running a script installed in the default PATH by a package should not get any error. Or it should be documented prominently. > And I wouldn't say that the script is non functional, it just requires > installation of another package. This is really only issue of aesthetics and I'd > like to leave that on Miroslav to decide. It's not aesthetic, it's poor packaging. Packaged software should work out of the box, or have things that won't work out of the box documented. > The release number should be probably just a single number (+ disttag) for FC devel. If it is a pre-release it should be named according to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-d97a3f40b6dd9d2288206ac9bd8f1bf9b791b22a If it is a post release version, it is right as is, as seen here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-18aa467fc6925455e44be682fd336667a17e8933 > The scripts aren't one-to-one copy of the scriptlets from guidelines but I don't > think it is mandatory to have one-to-one copy if they work the same. I agree on the principle, but I'd like to have some explanations. Is it true that they work the same? Is it sure that the exit 0 is enough to avoid any failure? Some snippets on the wiki page have ||:, is it unusefull? > As the things above are only minor nits and comments and the package is OK > otherwise I think I can call it ACCEPTED. One of my questions hasn't been answered. It is certainly not a blocker, but I think it also deserves an explanation (it may even be that it is the other possibility, ie doing useradd only for the first install which is wrong): * why isn't the useradd only done for the first install? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review