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: nfs-utils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226198 bugzilla@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-05-05 22:20 EST ------- Wow, looks like I had planned to add more to this ticket and then promptly ran out of time for a couple of months. Here's where we're at. Some strange-permission warnings in the srpm, which should be OK. Several rpmlint issues with the built RPM: E: nfs-utils executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/nfs E: nfs-utils executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/nfslock E: nfs-utils executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/rpcgssd E: nfs-utils executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/rpcidmapd E: nfs-utils executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/rpcsvcgssd W: nfs-utils conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rc.d/init.d/nfs W: nfs-utils conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rc.d/init.d/nfslock W: nfs-utils conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rc.d/init.d/rpcgssd W: nfs-utils conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rc.d/init.d/rpcidmapd W: nfs-utils conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rc.d/init.d/rpcsvcgssd The current packaging guidelines indicate that init files should be executable and should not be marked %config. E: nfs-utils zero-length /var/lib/nfs/rmtab E: nfs-utils zero-length /var/lib/nfs/etab E: nfs-utils zero-length /var/lib/nfs/state E: nfs-utils zero-length /var/lib/nfs/xtab Generally we don't ship zero-length files, but I guess something has to be installed there and I'm not sure if the files can contain comments. E: nfs-utils setuid-binary /sbin/mount.nfs root 04755 E: nfs-utils setuid-binary /sbin/umount.nfs root 04755 E: nfs-utils setuid-binary /sbin/mount.nfs4 root 04755 E: nfs-utils setuid-binary /sbin/umount.nfs4 root 04755 E: nfs-utils non-standard-executable-perm /sbin/mount.nfs 04755 E: nfs-utils non-standard-executable-perm /sbin/umount.nfs 04755 E: nfs-utils non-standard-executable-perm /sbin/mount.nfs4 04755 E: nfs-utils non-standard-executable-perm /sbin/umount.nfs4 04755 E: nfs-utils non-readable /var/lib/nfs/state 0600 E: nfs-utils non-standard-uid /var/lib/nfs/statd rpcuser E: nfs-utils non-standard-gid /var/lib/nfs/statd rpcuser E: nfs-utils non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/nfs/statd 0700 These are OK. E: nfs-utils explicit-lib-dependency libevent E: nfs-utils explicit-lib-dependency libgssapi I'm not sure I understand these. What's the point of putting just a library dependency in Requires(pre)? If something in %pre needs those libraries, won't it have its own dependencies? W: nfs-utils incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0.12-4 1:1.0.12-4.fc7 rpmlint is complaining about not seeing the epoch inthe changelog entry I don't think this it's a big deal. W: nfs-utils dangerous-command-in-%pre mv I wonder if we still support upgrading from anything old enough to need that bit in %pre. It looks like FC4 still used "rpc.*" while FC5 uses "rpc*", so we probably still need it. W: nfs-utils dangerous-command-in-%preun userdel The guidelines for this aren't finished yet, but general sentiment is that we shouldn't delete service users. It's obvious if uninstalling the package would leave unowned files W: nfs-utils service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/nfslock W: nfs-utils service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/rpcidmapd W: nfs-utils service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/rpcgssd Generally it's bad if merely installing a package results in a running service, but this is the nfs client and perhaps Red Hat has some other policy here. W: nfs-utils no-reload-entry /etc/rc.d/init.d/nfslock I've always wondered why that script is missing reload. Honestly, besides those rpmlint bits and the above question about the nfs.doc tarball, I think this package is fine. -- 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