[Bug 174883] Review Request: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system
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: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=174883 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? | -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 174883] Review Request: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system
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: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=174883 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-07 17:25 EST --- Enrico gave me his ok to go with the oher review, so we can now with all due reverence close this 27 month-old ticket. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 433228 *** -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 174883] Review Request: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system
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: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=174883 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-17 15:55 EST --- *** Bug 433228 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 174883] Review Request: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system
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: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=174883 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-12-30 15:39 EST --- It would be great if the Zeroconf/Avahi patch I posted could be merged into this package: http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/avahi-distcc.html -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 174883] Review Request: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system
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: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=174883 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-14 06:58 EST --- Enrico, it would be nice if you could elaborate a bit if someone does not have an immediate understanding of what you are doing in your scripts or spec-files. I guess you can see that there are implicit questions in Laurent's comments. Laurent, the PATH has to be modified because if a user installs distcc it should automagically be in the users path, so that it can be used with minimal effort. As for the package: There are multiple rpmlint warnings. I would like you to fix them. If you don't think that the warnings rpmlint gives are correct then please tell us why you think so. I attach the warnings to this bug. The script /etc/profile.d/distcc.sh is fine with me. However, for a better understanding a one-line comment about what this script does would be good. One other thing is that variable names like __c or __d are not self speaking. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 174883] Review Request: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system
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: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=174883 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-14 06:58 EST --- Created an attachment (id=257941) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=257941action=view) distcc rpmlint log 2.18.3-6 -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 174883] Review Request: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system
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: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=174883 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-14 12:49 EST --- Enrico has a hard-on for obfuscation. Why do we need two different methods to do the same thing in discc.sh? Pick one please. I would point out the grep method is what ccache.sh uses. It seems rather gratuitous and inconsistent to me to have such a complex script to do basically the same thing another package is doing, one that distcc is likely to be used in combination with. Consistency is good. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 174883] Review Request: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system
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: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=174883 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-14 13:04 EST --- It looks like the license is GPLv2+. The license field must be changed to comply with current guidelines. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing I'm kind of busy lately, though I do use distcc. If anyone else wants to take over the review, feel free. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 174883] Review Request: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system
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: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=174883 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||rmatik.tu-chemnitz.de) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-12 07:19 EST --- Is anybody working on that package? -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 174883] Review Request: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system
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: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=174883 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]| |rmatik.tu-chemnitz.de) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-12 13:17 EST --- yes (resp: no, there are no open issues) -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 174883] Review Request: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system
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: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=174883 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-12 18:02 EST --- As far as I can see, there are a log of remarks made where you have just replied No you are wrong, I have done the right thing, rpmlint is boggy. That might be the reason why this review request is stalled. As far as I am concerned. I told you: (In reply to comment #30) That script is also broken even on i386: PATH=$__d$PATH should be PATH=$__:d$PATH. [sic] Anyway, that script cannot be shipped in Fedora like that. It should be easily readable. What is more, do we really want to modify all users' PATH like that? And you answers were not satisfying. You replied: (In reply to comment #32) Anyway, that script cannot be shipped in Fedora like that. It should be easily readable. ??? I do not see how to write it in another way. Everybody with 1-2 years bash experience should be able to understand and modify it. I was so understandable that you made an error in it. I know that it is readable. Even I, a zsh, user, managed to modify it. However, it is complicated, and I am not sure to understand its need. What is more, do we really want to modify all users' PATH like that? yes That reply was not a satisfying answer. I would have liked to know why it is needed. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 174883] Review Request: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system
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: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=174883 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-12 20:00 EST --- is there a question in your comment? -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 174883] Review Request: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system
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: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174883 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-08 05:45 EST --- (In reply to comment #26) 2) distcc.sh is incredibly unreadable. And broken, it will fail on x86_64 because ccache is in /usr/lib64/ccache, which is also broken. That script is also broken even on i386: PATH=$__d$PATH should be PATH=$__:d$PATH. Anyway, that script cannot be shipped in Fedora like that. It should be easily readable. What is more, do we really want to modify all users' PATH like that? -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 174883] Review Request: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system
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: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174883 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-08 05:59 EST --- (In reply to comment #30) That script is also broken even on i386: PATH=$__d$PATH should be PATH=$__:d$PATH. PATH=$__d:$PATH, of course. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 174883] Review Request: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system
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: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174883 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776 | nThis|| -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 174883] Review Request: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system
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: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174883
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|normal |medium
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 11:47 EST ---
(In reply to comment #26)
3) What does release_func accomplish? It obfusticates the fact that the
release
tag violates policy. It should be a single integer followed by the release
tag,
unless you're bumping an old tree in which case you can add a number after
the
release tag.
Actually, if %release_func is not defined, the default %release_func:
%global release_func() %1%{?dist}
seems to do the right thing.
However, that macro is obfuscating. It should be removed from the spec file,
and Release: should be:
Release: 6%{?dist}
--
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@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 174883] Review Request: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system
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: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174883
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |medium
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|medium |low
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-31 10:42 EST ---
* Sat Mar 31 2007 Enrico Scholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 2.18.3-5
- require main package by -gnome
- use %_bindir macro instead of /usr/bin to create links to the
compilers
* Sun Mar 18 2007 Enrico Scholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 2.18.3-5
- moved symlinks from /usr/share/distcc/bin to /usr/libexec/distcc/bin
- handle symlinks with %ghost instead of removing them manually
- use CCACHE_PREFIX in the profile script
- followed nonsense^Wrule-of-the-day and removed %config from
init-scripts, added big 'DO NOT MODIFY' banners to it and made it
0555
- ship the icon only in the them directory and apply patch to use
gtk_window_set_icon_name() instead of
gtk_window_set_icon_from_file()
http://ensc.de/fedora/distcc/
=
@comment 25
===
* W: distcc strange-permission distccd.sysv 0755
sounds like a bug in rpmlint... 0755 is a valid, non-strange permission
- The following script
%preun
test $1 -ne 0 || rm -f %pkgdatadir/bin/*
should be treated by %ghost files. And having symlinks marked
as %ghost files is needed anyway, otherwise these symlinks
are regarded as being not owned by any package.
And rm -f %pkgdatadir/bin/* (all glob) is too dangerous. Remove
only the files which should really be treated by this rpm.
ok; changed
[ ! -x /usr/bin/$c ] || ln -sf %_bindir/distcc %pkgdatadir/bin/$c
- Why do you use /usr/bin/$c (this is not macro) and
%_bindir/distcc
(here macro %_bindir is used)?
ok; changed
- By the way, while ln and rm are marked as dangerous
commands, unlink is not marked as such.
... I will not change such things just to silent rpmlint. There are
enough other things (e.g. 'L=r;M=m; ${L}${M} -rf /') how such messages
can be prevented
* E: distcc-server non-standard-gid /var/log/distccd.log distcc
bug in rpmlint to mark such things as errors
E: distcc-server non-root-group-log-file /var/log/distccd.log distcc
- Fot the latter rpmlint says:
-
If you need log files owned by a non-root group, just create a subdir in
/var/log and put your log files in it.
-
Perhaps you have to create /var/log/distccd directory and
move the log files under the directory, however I can see
some other packages putting log files under /var/log with
non-standard gid..
IMO, it is overkill to create for every single logfile an own directory.
It will break logrotation when for example 'olddir .old' is specified in
a global configuration file and administrator did not created '.old' in
the directory.
Beside this, changing the default /var/log/distccd.log logfile would
complicate things because it is hardcoded in some places.
* W: distcc-server dangerous-command-in-%post chown
- The corresponding scripts are:
-
%post server
test -e '%logfile' || {
touch '%logfile'
chown root:%username '%logfile'
chmod 0620 '%logfile'
}
-
If the %logfile should always exist, then this should
not be handled by %ghost, but should be handled by
* this file should be touched at %install stage
* should be handled by %verify(not md5 size mtime)
* and chown call should be removed.
I think, the '%config %ghost' mark are the only correct way to handle
logfiles. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Logfiles
- Well, I remember this was discussed on fedora--list
recently, and what was the conclusion?? Should rcinit file
be marked as %config? (Is this really a %config file?)
Ok; I applied this nonsense-of-the-day rule...
W: distcc-server-xinetd summary-not-capitalized xinetd initscripts for the
distcc daemon
[Bug 174883] Review Request: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system
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: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174883 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-18 05:54 EST --- 1) Is it really necessary to split off the init scripts and xinetd stuff into sub-packages? I see no reason for it. 2) distcc.sh is incredibly unreadable. And broken, it will fail on x86_64 because ccache is in /usr/lib64/ccache, which is also broken. Perhaps libexec is the place both ccache and distcc should be playing their gcc hijacking tricks. How about something more like this: 3) What does release_func accomplish? It obfusticates the fact that the release tag violates policy. It should be a single integer followed by the release tag, unless you're bumping an old tree in which case you can add a number after the release tag. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 174883] Review Request: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system
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: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174883 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-18 06:55 EST --- Err, that is, like this: if ! echo $PATH | grep -q ccache ; then PATH=/usr/share/distcc/bin:$PATH else CCACHE_PREFIX=distcc fi -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 174883] Review Request: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system
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: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174883 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-17 10:10 EST --- * Sat Mar 17 2007 Enrico Scholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 2.18.3-4 - workaround bug #232761 in desktop-file-utils by using long '--mode' instead of '-m' - moved away from -lsb initstyle and use proprietary RH sysv initstyle instead of - cleaned up categories of the desktop file http://ensc.de/fedora/distcc/ -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 174883] Review Request: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system
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: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174883
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-17 14:42 EST ---
Created an attachment (id=150315)
-- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=150315action=view)
rpmlint log for distcc-2.18.3-3.7
Well, though I have not read the previous discussion on this
bug report, I write here my first opinition.
A. About rpmlint:
A-1 for source:
* W: distcc strange-permission distccd.sysv 0755
- Change to 0644.
A-2 For binary:
* W: distcc incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.18.3-4 2.18.3-3.7.fc7
- Very trivial...
* W: distcc dangerous-command-in-%preun rm
W: distcc dangerous-command-in-%trigger ln
W: distcc dangerous-command-in-%trigger rm
- The following script
%preun
test $1 -ne 0 || rm -f %pkgdatadir/bin/*
should be treated by %ghost files. And having symlinks
marked as %ghost files is needed anyway, otherwise these symlinks are
regarded as being not owned by any package.
And rm -f %pkgdatadir/bin/* (all glob) is too dangerous. Remove
only the files which should really be treated by this rpm.
[ ! -x /usr/bin/$c ] || ln -sf %_bindir/distcc %pkgdatadir/bin/$c
- Why do you use /usr/bin/$c (this is not macro) and %_bindir/distcc
(here macro %_bindir is used)?
- By the way, while ln and rm are marked as dangerous commands,
unlink is not marked as such.
* E: distcc-server non-standard-gid /var/log/distccd.log distcc
E: distcc-server non-root-group-log-file /var/log/distccd.log distcc
- Fot the latter rpmlint says:
-
If you need log files owned by a non-root group, just create a subdir in
/var/log and put your log files in it.
-
Perhaps you have to create /var/log/distccd directory and move
the log files under the directory,
however I can see some other packages putting log files under /var/log
with non-standard gid..
* W: distcc-server dangerous-command-in-%post chown
- The corresponding scripts are:
-
%post server
test -e '%logfile' || {
touch '%logfile'
chown root:%username '%logfile'
chmod 0620 '%logfile'
}
-
If the %logfile should always exist, then this should
not be handled by %ghost, but should be handled by
* this file should be touched at %install stage
* should be handled by %verify(not md5 size mtime)
* and chown call should be removed.
* initrc file
-
W: distcc-server-sysv conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rc.d/init.d/distccd
E: distcc-server-sysv executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/distccd
-
- Well, I remember this was discussed on fedora--list recently,
and what was the conclusion?? Should rcinit file be marked as %config?
(Is this really a %config file?)
* Summary for -server-xinetd
--
W: distcc-server-xinetd summary-not-capitalized xinetd initscripts for the
distcc daemon
--
- Simply change to Xinetd initscripts
+ IMO the following rpmlint can be ignored.
-
W: distcc conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/profile.d/distcc.sh
W: distcc-server conffile-without-noreplace-flag /var/log/distccd.log
E: distcc-server incoherent-logrotate-file /etc/logrotate.d/distccd
W: distcc-server-sysv no-documentation
E: distcc-server-sysv non-standard-dir-perm /var/run/distccd 0775
W: distcc-server-sysv incoherent-init-script-name distccd
W: distcc-server-xinetd no-documentation
-
... However, once please comment on these warnings.
B. Scriptlets
* For GTK+ icon cache
- Well, please check again the scriptlets for GTK+ icon cache
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets
C. Directory ownership
-
# ignore ownership of the %_datadir/icons/... directories; Core is
# too broken to add good Requires(pre/postun).
-
- If you mind, you can simply add to -gnome
[Bug 174883] Review Request: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system
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: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174883 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-30 06:57 EST --- Created an attachment (id=146910) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=146910action=view) Mock build log of distcc-2.18.3-2.fc7 Mockbuild pf 2.18.3-2 fails on FC-devel i386. Please check the mockbuild log. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 174883] Review Request: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system
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: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174883 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-30 02:40 EST --- Mon Jan 29 2007 Enrico Scholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 2.18.3-2 - cleanups - updated icon-cache scriptlets - removed empty (ssh), unavailable (minit) and conflicting (initng) initscripts http://ensc.de/fedora/distcc/ -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 174883] Review Request: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system
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: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174883 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-24 11:05 EST --- Umm... this review ticket has currently no activity. Enrico, would you update your spec/srpm if you have some points you want to change or fix? After that, I will take a look at your spec/srpm. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 174883] Review Request: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system
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: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174883 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163776 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-29 11:53 EST --- It seems that nobody is reviewing this bug. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 174883] Review Request: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system
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: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174883 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-15 10:48 EST --- What is the status of the current review? It seems stalled. Enrico -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 174883] Review Request: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system
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: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174883 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||laurent.rineau__fedora_extra ||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-15 10:50 EST --- What is the status of the current review? It seems stalled. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 174883] Review Request: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system
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: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174883 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-14 15:44 EST --- Reassigning bugs from gdk (old RHN engineering Manager) to tsanders (current RHN engineering manager) -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 174883] Review Request: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system
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: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174883 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-10 14:28 EST --- The fedora-usermgmt-devel stuff is for/in the -devel branch. When package gets approved during the FC-5 lifetime, I will use the old style. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 174883] Review Request: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system
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: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174883 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 12:16 EST --- The latest spec-file http://ensc.de/fedora/distcc/distcc-2.18.3-1.8.fc5x.src.rpm can not be built under a FC5 system because of the fedora-usermgmt-devel requirement. According to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageUserCreation there could be a workaround for systems which do not provide the usermgmt requirement (section 'Alternatives'). -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 174883] Review Request: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system
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: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174883 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 13:52 EST --- It seems that 'fedora-usermgmt-devel' should be 'fedora-usermgmt' -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 174883] Review Request: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system
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: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174883 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-16 06:16 EST --- Is Greg really going to review this or should it be reassigned to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 174883] Review Request: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system
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: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174883 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-16 06:31 EST --- If greg steps down, I'm happy to take it on (I use it quite regularly anyway) -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 174883] Review Request: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system
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: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174883 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-16 06:41 EST --- %post gnome gtk-update-icon-cache -qf /usr/share/icons/hicolor 2/dev/null || : Please check http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ScriptletSnippets#head-fc74f078205565f961f6d836b77c3428619c689d %pre server /usr/sbin/fedora-groupadd This really needs to be checked ala the above link %triggerin -- %handled_pkgs for name in %handled_progs; do for c in $name i386-redhat-linux-$name This is an out of interest question - why only i386-redhat? There is no excludearch up there. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 174883] Review Request: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system
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: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174883 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-16 07:04 EST --- sorry; forgot to upload/announce the updated spec file * Wed Aug 09 2006 Enrico Scholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 2.18.3-1.6 - bound a %postun script to -gnome subpackage - use %bcond* macros * Sun Jul 09 2006 Enrico Scholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 2.18.3-1.5 - updated to new fedora-usermgmt code - updated to new ccache path - added distccmon-gnome-icon.png to the pkgdatadir http://ensc.de/fedora/distcc/ I will comment the issues in comment #11 in this evening. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 174883] Review Request: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system
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: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174883 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-16 18:13 EST --- * Wed Aug 16 2006 Enrico Scholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 2.18.3-1.8 - simplified LSB initscripts and support only one $DISTCC_OPTS variable - ship sample sysconfig file for LSB - use rpm macros to create the platform tuple instead of hardcoding 'i386-redhat-linux' - added '%%bcond_without fedora' http://ensc.de/fedora/distcc/ = comment #8: --- But the file /etc/sysconfig/distccd is missing in your installation. it will be read only, when existing. Hence, there is no real need to ship it. For documentation purposes, I added it in the current package I would furthermore suggest not to test for readability (-r) but for existance (-a)of the sysconf-file. I do not see problems with '-r' E: distcc-server-lsb non-standard-gid /var/run/distccd distcc E: distcc-server-lsb non-standard-dir-perm /var/run/distccd 0775 That should be fixed, I guess. permissions/group are fine comment #11: %post gnome gtk-update-icon-cache -qf /usr/share/icons/hicolor 2/dev/null || : Please check http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ScriptletSnippets#head-fc74f078205565f961f6d836b77c3428619c689d is ok; the 'touch ...' in the sample scriptlet might be from old FC when 'gtk-update-icon-cache' did not know the '-f' flag. I do not see sense in checking for existence first: the command will be called with trailing '|| :' and potential error messages redirected into /dev/null %pre server /usr/sbin/fedora-groupadd package should have the corresponding 'Requires(pre): fedora-usermgmt' for c in $name i386-redhat-linux-$name This is an out of interest question - why only i386-redhat? thx; I compose the platform tuple from rpm macros now -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
