Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: dovecot https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225708 tjanouse@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(tjanouse@xxxxxxxxx| |m) | ------- Additional Comments From tjanouse@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-03-02 10:01 EST ------- Hi Jef, thanks for your review, I applied your diff and commited, just changed the section removing .la/.a files to use find instead. My comments follow: (In reply to comment #1) > ? MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just > symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in > %post and %postun. If the package has multiple subpackages with libraries, each > subpackage should also have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig. > Comment: shared libs exist in /usr/lib/dovecot but they appear to be simple > plugins for dovecot's own runtime use and not meant for linking. if this is the > case, then no corrections need to be made. Please confirm that the items in > /usr/lib/dovecot are not meant to be dynamically linkable libraries. I confirm that. > E: dovecot configure-without-libdir-spec > ????? I am not sure what rpmlint is trying to tell us here. This is probably a rpmlint bug, the libdir is passed by %configure itself. > E: dovecot non-readable /etc/pki/dovecot/certs/dovecot.pem 0600 > E: dovecot non-standard-uid /var/lib/dovecot dovecot > E: dovecot non-standard-gid /var/lib/dovecot dovecot > E: dovecot non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/dovecot 0750 > E: dovecot non-standard-gid /var/run/dovecot/login dovecot > E: dovecot non-standard-dir-perm /var/run/dovecot/login 0750 > E: dovecot non-readable /etc/pki/dovecot/private/dovecot.pem 0600 > .... all of these rpmlint errors appear to be bogus to me. Please confirm that > the permissions and ownership are as intended for these. Yes, they are. > W: dovecot dangerous-command-in-%pre rm > W: dovecot dangerous-command-in-%post mv > W: dovecot dangerous-command-in-%preun userdel > .... I think these warnings are bogus. Though you may want to look back over > the use of the rm and mv commands to see if they are still needed. > I think I understand why the restart_flag logic is present. > But I do not understand why the ssl cert manipulation logic block is in > %post. All the file location testing and conditional use of mv. What > cases trigger the mv commands? Is this logic meant for now EOL'd fedora > and rhl releases? Yeah, the certificate paths used to be different, this block moves them to new location. (In reply to comment #4) > If there is no -devel package, does that stop someone from being able to build > something like http://wiki.dovecot.org/LDA/Sieve?highlight=%28dovecot-sieve%29 > against it? I know that Sieve will not build the way dovecot is currently > packaged, because the Sieve program needs to be able to find a file called > dovecot-config in the "compiled Dovecot sources". I do not know what the correct > way to handle this but I ask that you take my comments into consideration, in > case someone would like to use Dovecot-Sive with this package. I didn't find any easy way to make dovecot-sieve compile against packaged version. It just wants access to the dovecot build dir. I might create a -devel package in the future as upstream added an option to install headers, but the location of things is probably still not ok. Regarding dovecot-sieve, we'll probably build that from the same source package. -- 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