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: audit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225292 ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxx 2008-01-15 23:17 EST ------- >BTW, I use essentially the same spec file for upstream, RHEL, and Fedora. I >don't like making changes for one that affects another since the audit system is >under heavy development. If it were an older stable package, I wouldn't care so >much. Totally understood. >#1 fixed, Thanks. Looks good. >#2 fixed but I like the shorter version better...why else have an url? The Source url can be very different from the URL field. Tools like spectool -g and so forth look for the Source at a absolute URL. So, it's best to specify the entire thing. >#3 its a reminder to get it working at some point - added a comment, ok, sounds good. >#4 sometimes people like to make a utility that runs early or from busybox. I'd >rather delete it in a few more weeks. ok. Possibly you could split them out into a -static subpackage? >#5 it already was that way, Doese't seem to be. It's not a big deal, but doing the %postun libs -p /sbin/ldconfig means it just calls ldconfig, where if it's not using the -p it will spawn a shell and pass the contents (ldconfig) to it. Just a fork of a bash different I guess. >#6 will look into it another day, patches are welcome, Ok. Will attach a patch here. >#7 that was put there because it was required. > There was a bz opened that this was the fix for so I can't get rid of it, Odd. Do you know the bug number? The guidelines forbid this now: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines?highlight=(prereq)#head-c81b037a3a0d08f98eb9cb50594f5de73d1e461d >#8 a) af_unix must be that way due to a mistake that must be overwritten. >I'll change that another time. ok. Might also make a note in the spec about it in case someone wonders. > b) coreutils has to be there. coreutils is in the base buildroot, and will always be there. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions > c) I don't know a better way to do this patches welcome > please test on x86_64, though. Yeah, I guess the python bits are arch independent, but the package is arch, so it complains. Nothing I can think of to do unless the python audit bits split out into their own noarch package. ;( > d) logrotate is the enemy of audit. Audit must do its own rotation for security >purposes. Hum. I guess that makes some sense. > e) those upgrade commands are for audit 1.0.x systems. Yeah, and we should keep supporting the last 3 releases for upgrades. If audit1.0.x is newer than that, keep it. > f) where is this done in the spec file? I don't see any > symlinking of consolehelper. Then again, consolehelper had better > be in /usr/bin and not some relative directory. It's not in the spec, it's part of the 'make install', ie upstream. /usr/libexec/system-config-audit-server -> /usr/bin/consolehelper >audit-1.6.5-3 has the changes from this review in it. When you see if finish >going through koji successfully, please feel free to look it over. Excellent. Thanks for the quick response here... Will attach a patch for items 5, 6, 7... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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