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: poker-network - A poker server, client and abstract user interface library Alias: poker-network https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219972 ------- Additional Comments From chris.stone@xxxxxxxxx 2007-01-24 17:21 EST ------- > MUSTFIX > ======= > * Upstream bug #1454 that will allow this to be a noarch package. Should be fixed. > * Create a 'poker' user for running the server for better security I used user "games" instead. > * /usr/share/doc/poker-network-1.0.33/NIHPHOBIA is cute, but not really > necessary, is it? Removed. > * Don't use %{version} in the patch filenames. The version in a patch > filename is supposed to reflect the package version when the patch > was first introduced, not the current package version. Fixed. > > SHOULD > ====== > * Add selinux policies to poker-server for better security Need help from you on this. > * Patch tests/Makefile.in and configure in poker-network-1.0.33-config.patch > so that you don't have to call 'autoreconf' during %build. Hopefully > upstream will adopt this patch in a new release so that it becomes a > moot point. They will, not sure it's worth the effort since the patch will be in the next release. > * Use %{_initrddir} instead of %{_sysconfdir}/init.d Done. > * Use double quotes around the sed regsub pattern to avoid potential > problems if %{python_sitelib} were to ever contain a space. There already are double quotes around this path in the init file. > > NOTES and Questions > =================== > * poker-network and poker2d (BZ #222612) use the same upstream source > tarball, but different spec files. My understanding is that this is > so that poker-network can be marked as 'noarch', while poker2d will contain > arch-specific bits. As far as I am aware, there are no problems > using the same source file for two different spec files, aside from > duplication in the resulting srpm. No, the packages are seperated because they need to use different %configure options. The fact that it allows us to make one package noarch is a beneficial side-effect. > * Why does the package contain a x509 certificate for 'webmaster@localhost'? > 09:38:57 XulChris | dachary: reviewer wants to know: "Why does the package contain a x509 certificate for 'webmaster@localhost'?" 09:38:57 dachary | :-) 09:39:12 dachary | for the SSL conx to the poker server 09:39:46 XulChris | dachary: i dont know anything about x509 certificates, but what if you dont have a webmaster user name or use "localhost"? 09:40:12 dachary | it's a self signed certificate 09:40:21 dachary | the email does not matter much 09:40:33 XulChris | so its nothing i have to generate at build time then? 09:40:41 dachary | it's a place holder that must be replaced if you're serious about security 09:40:47 dachary | no -- 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