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 tmraz@xxxxxxxxxx 2006-11-09 14:48 EST ------- (In reply to comment #11) > > 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. OK, if README.fedora in %doc would satisfy you I think that Miroslav should add it. Or arpfetch could be moved to %doc. > > 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 It is post release, I didn't comment on the version but on the release number (1.1) - two part number shouldn't be used in devel without a reason. > > 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? I've actually tested the scriptlets and even if /sbin/service return nonzero exit code the chkconfig runs OK so the || : is unnecessary. > > 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? > I'll leave this one on Miroslav to answer. -- 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