[Bug 176253] Review Request: clement-2.1
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: clement-2.1 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176253 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-22 07:33 EST --- Part now of the DEVEL EXTRAS, build successful. -- 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 176253] Review Request: clement-2.1
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: clement-2.1 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176253 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|NOTABUG |NEXTRELEASE -- 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 176253] Review Request: clement-2.1
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: clement-2.1 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176253 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776, 177841 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 05:25 EST --- (In reply to comment #28) Version 2.1-192 SPECS file fine tuning, user/group clement used to run the main daemon Spec Url: ftp://ftp.safe.ca/pub/clement-2.1/SPECS/clement-2.1-192.spec SRPM Url: ftp://ftp.safe.ca/pub/clement-2.1/SRPMS/clement-2.1-192.src.rpm Looks good, I've sponsored you and its ok to import this now. There is one small thing you should fix before importing, please add || : at the end of all the commands (not the if / endif lines) in the pre / post / postun scripts, that way if one of these commands fail it doesn't cause the entire rpm transaction to fail. This is especially important for the pre script, because of a user installs, then removes and then tries to reinstall clement the groupadd and useradd will fail because they already exist (which is ok, the exisiting user may be recycled in this corner case). -- 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 176253] Review Request: clement-2.1
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: clement-2.1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176253
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 03:40 EST ---
(In reply to comment #16)
I think datadir is not a problem, I need to double check with the PHP person,
should be fixed in the next version.
clement is not 'setuid' but must be root open 1024 port.
such the Clement daemon is started as root and clement take
the application ownership to become a standard user mail
to avoid the have a daemon with root priviledge open on the
(wild) outside.
I understand, but then the %{_usr}/bin/%{name} file doesn't have the be owned by
mail.mail and could be just root.root, right?
My real question al allong has been why is %{_usr}/bin/%{name} owned by
mail.mail?
I would rather have a clement username but
rpmlint seems to be rather reluctant to 'give/declare' new
username.
Thats possible, add the following lines (at the appropiate places):
Requires(pre): /usr/sbin/useradd, /usr/sbin/groupadd
%pre
/usr/sbin/groupadd -r clement 2 /dev/null || :
/usr/sbin/useradd -s /sbin/nologin -M -d / -c Clement daemon -r -g clement \
clement 2 /dev/null || :
And then you can use %attr (-,clement,clement) in %files. You will ofcourse also
need to patch the daemon to drop its root rights to the user clement instead of
mail.
This might generatre some rpmlint warnings but these may be ignored.
--
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 176253] Review Request: clement-2.1
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: clement-2.1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176253
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 08:04 EST ---
Seems I do not explain myself right...
%{_usr}/bin/%{name} MUST be own by 'somebody' else than root to have clement to
know, once started, under which ID it must run (the application look about
the file ownership and say 'ok lets seteuid to this'), if the application
is not setuid the only other way is to hard code the effective uid, this is
not good from my stand point. I choosed 'mail' because this ID is used by
related application. I want to give possibility to change this on the fly
by local sysadmin.
useradd and groupadd clement where part of the original implementation but
removed to comply to rpmlint.
If rpmlint is a reference tools to 'the right way to do something' warning
can't ignore. IMHO rpmlint warning are 'you are doing something which can work
but are against established standard'.
--
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 176253] Review Request: clement-2.1
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: clement-2.1 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176253 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 08:14 EST --- I choosed 'mail' because this ID is used by related application. This asks for a very close look. Either it is a necessity, by design, that the program must run as mail. Or it is a fault, and it runs with a shared uid/gid it should not have access to. -- 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 176253] Review Request: clement-2.1
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: clement-2.1 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176253 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 08:42 EST --- (In reply to comment #19) I choosed 'mail' because this ID is used by related application. This asks for a very close look. Either it is a necessity, by design, that the program must run as mail. Or it is a fault, and it runs with a shared uid/gid it should not have access to. OK lets resolv the equation 1) the application must not run as root 2) rpmlint complain if you add/create a user 3) We should not use an existing user -- 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 176253] Review Request: clement-2.1
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: clement-2.1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176253
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 08:43 EST ---
(In reply to comment #18)
Seems I do not explain myself right...
%{_usr}/bin/%{name} MUST be own by 'somebody' else than root to have clement
to
know, once started, under which ID it must run (the application look about
the file ownership and say 'ok lets seteuid to this'), if the application
is not setuid the only other way is to hard code the effective uid, this is
not good from my stand point. I choosed 'mail' because this ID is used by
related application. I want to give possibility to change this on the fly
by local sysadmin.
I understand.
useradd and groupadd clement where part of the original implementation but
removed to comply to rpmlint.
If rpmlint is a reference tools to 'the right way to do something' warning
can't ignore. IMHO rpmlint warning are 'you are doing something which can work
but are against established standard'.
No, a rpmlint warning means you shouldnot be doing this unless you've got a good
reason, and it this case we have a good reason so using user and groupadd is ok.
(In reply to comment #19)
I choosed 'mail' because this ID is used by related application.
This asks for a very close look. Either it is a necessity, by design,
that the program must run as mail. Or it is a fault, and it runs with
a shared uid/gid it should not have access to.
If I understand jmp correctly its the latter (a fault) jmp if you think it is
better to have it run as clement, feel free to add the user, in exceptional
cases (which daemons always are) you can ignore the relevant rpmlint warnings,
thats why they are warnings, rpmlint deliberatly has 2 levels of compaining,
warn and error, and these are only warnings.
--
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 176253] Review Request: clement-2.1
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: clement-2.1 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176253 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 09:40 EST --- 2) rpmlint complain if you add/create a user Hmm? The dangerous-command-in _warning_ about userdel/groupdel? This is misinformation. Surely there are valid cases when creating a new user or group is required/justified. Similarly, there are cases when deleting a user or group during package removal can be done, i.e. if no files owned by that uid/gid are left anywhere. In particular, since you want a centralized quarantine area (quote), you need a special uid/gid and not use an existing uid/gid which is shared with other programs/services. -- 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 176253] Review Request: clement-2.1
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: clement-2.1 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176253 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 10:05 EST --- So I added clement as group user as suggested. got this from rpmlint (many lines of this kind) E: clement non-standard-gid /var/spool/clement-2.1/mqueue clement A file in this package is owned by a non standard group. Standard groups are: root, bin, daemon, sys, adm, tty, disk, lp, mem, kmem, wheel, mail, news, uucp, man, games, gopher, dip, ftp, lock, nobody, users Does not look like as a 'Warning' to me, how to make it as a Warning? Also got this warning W: clement dangerous-command-in-%preun userdel because I would like to delete created user when removing all the application, there is a kind of ambiguity here as some file could be left if the application was in production previously. My understanding of the last Michael comment is to let the sys-admin delete the remaining user/group himself, right? -- 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 176253] Review Request: clement-2.1
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: clement-2.1 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176253 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 10:19 EST --- E: clement non-standard-gid /var/spool/clement-2.1/mqueue clement Who cares? This is not the first package that creates a new user/group. My understanding of the last Michael comment is to let the sys-admin delete the remaining user/group himself, right? Yes. If package removal does not get rid of all files owned by that user/group, the next package might allocate the same uid/gid and give some other software access to the old files, which are still left on the file-system as orphans. -- 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 176253] Review Request: clement-2.1
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: clement-2.1 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176253 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 10:39 EST --- (In reply to comment #24) E: clement non-standard-gid /var/spool/clement-2.1/mqueue clement Who cares? This is not the first package that creates a new user/group. Me!. Agree this is not the first package creating a user/group problem, if rpmlint is THE reference and rpmlint is reporting error how can I make the difference between real error which are errors from simple advice... now in my case there is 48 errors which are 'who cares', h.. My understanding of the last Michael comment is to let the sys-admin delete the remaining user/group himself, right? Yes. If package removal does not get rid of all files owned by that user/group, the next package might allocate the same uid/gid and give some other software access to the old files, which are still left on the file-system as orphans. OK, lets keep the user/group then -- 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 176253] Review Request: clement-2.1
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: clement-2.1 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176253 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 12:18 EST --- There is no policy which says that all rpmlint errors/warnings must be fixed. Look at it from a different perspective to understand. There is nothing about this in the Package Review Guidelines. Nothing at all about creating user/group accounts. Not even the guideline about setuid root from fedora.us QACheckList is included. When we agreed on the initial rather long list of MUST/SHOULD items in a FESCO meeting, we didn't cover useradd/groupadd/userdel/groupdel or fedora-useradd and friends. | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines | | - SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. | This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine | sanity. If anything had changed over time, it should have been announced clearly. -- 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 176253] Review Request: clement-2.1
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: clement-2.1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176253
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-13 17:10 EST ---
(In reply to comment #14)
We need to be consistent here:
rpmlint is complaining about putting an application in setuid how could
you suggest to do this?
Clement is started un root priviledges and lets them go as soon
proper port (SMTP) are open, to do this it seteuid with the application
program
ownership. So there is NO purpose to put clement setuid, not from the
security stand point, not from the rpmlint stand point, not from application
stand point.
I think you understood me wrong here, I didn't want to suggest to make
%attr(-,mail,mail) %{_usr}/bin/%{name} setuid, I thought it was setuid and that
was why it has owner and group mail, if its not setuid, then why not just owner
and group root?
file in %{_usr}/lib are shell for clement application (utilities, support),
shell are not archs dependent.
OK.
You still haven't explained why you do:
%attr(-,mail,mail) %{_datadir}/%{name}-%{version}/
Instead of just:
%{_datadir}/%{name}-%{version}/
Or is that just a copy and paste error and will you fix that with the next
version?
--
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 176253] Review Request: clement-2.1
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: clement-2.1 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176253 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-13 19:07 EST --- I think datadir is not a problem, I need to double check with the PHP person, should be fixed in the next version. clement is not 'setuid' but must be root open 1024 port. such the Clement daemon is started as root and clement take the application ownership to become a standard user mail to avoid the have a daemon with root priviledge open on the (wild) outside. I would rather have a clement username but rpmlint seems to be rather reluctant to 'give/declare' new username. -- 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 176253] Review Request: clement-2.1
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: clement-2.1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176253
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-12 09:01 EST ---
We need to be consistent here:
rpmlint is complaining about putting an application in setuid how could
you suggest to do this?
Clement is started un root priviledges and lets them go as soon
proper port (SMTP) are open, to do this it seteuid with the application program
ownership. So there is NO purpose to put clement setuid, not from the
security stand point, not from the rpmlint stand point, not from application
stand point.
file in %{_usr}/lib are shell for clement application (utilities, support),
shell are not archs dependent.
--
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 176253] Review Request: clement-2.1
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: clement-2.1 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176253 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |ASSIGNED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-11 09:00 EST --- Version 2.1-186 SPECS file fine tuning, logs are not in /usr/share/clement anymore Spec Url: ftp://ftp.safe.ca/pub/clement-2.1/SPECS/clement-2.1-186.spec SRPM Url: ftp://ftp.safe.ca/pub/clement-2.1/SRPMS/clement-2.1-186.src.rpm Beside SPEC file fine tuning, numeros improvement and bug-fix since 2.1-176, see Changelog within SPEC file. -- 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 176253] Review Request: clement-2.1
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: clement-2.1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176253
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-12 01:38 EST ---
Almost there, why are these:
%attr(-,mail,mail) %{_usr}/bin/%{name}
%attr(-,mail,mail) %{_datadir}/%{name}-%{version}/
%attr(-,mail,mail) ?
Perhaps the binary is suid? In that case please reflect that in the %attr, even
if it already is made suid in %install. And I see no reason for the
%{_datadir}/%{name}-%{version} being mail.mail, prhaps this is a leftover from
when it contained the log files?
I also found some more should fixes, I see you use:
%{_usr}/bin in various places, you should replace that with %{_bindir}
also you use %{_usr}/lib, which will result in things getting installed under
/usr/lib instead of /usr/lib64 on 64 bit archs, is that intentional? If not
please replace it with %{_libdir}.
--
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 176253] Review Request: clement-2.1
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: clement-2.1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176253
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 07:27 EST ---
As promised here is a full review:
MUST:
=
* rpmlint output is clean, good!
* Package and spec file named appropriately
* Packaged according to packaging guidelines
* License (GPL) ok, license file included
* spec file is legible and in Am. English.
0 Cannot verify if source matches upstream because of broken Source URL,
this must be fixed!
* Compiles and builds on devel-x86_64
* BR: ok
* No locales
* No shared libraries
* Not relocatable
0 Package does NOT owns / or requires all dirs
* No duplicate files Permissions ok
* %clean macro usage OK
* Contains code and permissible content
* %doc does not affect runtime, and isn't large enough to warrent a sub package
* no -devel package needed, no libs / .la files.
* no gui - no .desktop file required
MUST fix:
=
* Proper downloadable Source URL
* This is dead wrong:
%attr(-,mail,mail) %{_usr}/share/%{name}-%{version}/logs/
Running software cannot shall not and must not write to /usr it could
be on a readonly partition or or or
Please make that:
%attr(-,mail,mail) %{_var}/log%{name}-%{version}/
And adjust the software to write it logs there, or am I misinterpreting
the dir name here?
* Unowned dir %{_usr}/share/%{name}-%{version}
Add: %dir %{_usr}/share/%{name}-%{version} to %files or better replace:
%{_usr}/share/%{name}-%{version}/*.php
%{_usr}/share/%{name}-%{version}/reg-icons
%{_usr}/share/%{name}-%{version}/local
%{_usr}/share/%{name}-%{version}/cgi-bin
With just:
%{_usr}/share/%{name}-%{version}
Should fix:
===
* Spec contains: #%postun this will end up as the last line of the %preun
line, harmless but it it would be cleaner to just remove it completly.
* Replace all occurences of %{_usr}/share with %{_datadir}
So all in all its looking good! Once all the must fix items are taken care of
I'll sponsor you and you can import this.
--
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 176253] Review Request: clement-2.1
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: clement-2.1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176253
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-07 16:33 EST ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Version 2.1-175 SPECS file is now clean according rpmlint-0.77-1.fc5
rpmbuild give no warning anymore about File listed twice
Good, whats with the release tag inflation (very high number)?
Spec Url: ftp://ftp.safe.ca/pub/clement-2.1/SPECS/clement-2.1-175.spec
SRPM Url: ftp://ftp.safe.ca/pub/clement-2.1/SRPMS/clement-2.1-175.src.rpm
Numerous bug-fix/improvement have been done since last bugzilla Clement
update (2.1-99), see the Changes file and SPEC Changelog for details.
According to me SPEC file is really better,
Yes it is, its becoming readable, with the proper order and stuff, it almost
looks like a real specfile now :)
there 2 issue not yet addressed:
1) /var/lib/clement-2.1 contents.
those file are mainly day to day clement own management, I am really
reluctant to put them in /usr/bin as they are for the sole clement purpose.
what is the best option in such case?
You could should put them under /usr/lib/clement (%{_libdir}/%{name}) really)
2) ownership for /var/www/clement-2.1:
putting everything own by 'mail' is may be overkilling, this web part is
not
meaningful if clement daemon is not up and running, Clement itself run with
uid 'mail', that why I chose to set the ownership as 'mail'.
I think a default of root root as normal would be better, with an exception for
files and or dir which clement needs to write.
Also I recently learned that web application packages should not touch /var/www
as they might accidently overwrite user content put there, instead the should
install their files under /usr/share/%{name}, see:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-5d1681fa7cf3714ad490fbf7c095a0cfe16da27f
Besides that things are looking good, accept for the:
#---
#Clement SPEC definition
#---
comment, please remove that.
Let me know when you've a new version with these issues fixed.
p.s.
I'm going on a short vacation from Monday 10 juli till Friday 14 juli,
so if I'm quiet for a while thats why.
--
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 176253] Review Request: clement-2.1
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: clement-2.1 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176253 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 04:45 EST --- Sorry for the long silence I've been busy with other Fedora stuff. As discussed by email I'll review this package and if that goes well I'll sponsor you. This isn't a Full Review yet, but this should give you enough for now to work on: * rpmlint gives: E: clement non-standard-gid /etc/clement-2.1/clement.conf apache This is intentional and can be ignored. Are you sure though you want apache to be able to write to this file, I guess this is for the clement webinterface, but is this safe? * During build on FC5-i386 rpm says: warning: File listed twice: /etc/clement-2.1/clement.conf warning: File listed twice: /etc/clement-2.1/clement.conf warning: File listed twice: /var/www/clement-2.1/clembase.php These must be fixed * All the files under /var/www are owned by mail, this doesn't seem right * The files under /var/lib/clement-2.1/ do not seem very variable (except for maybe dummy-cert?), please find a better place for these. * The remove.sh script called form %preun is evil EVIL *EVIL*, you cannot assume that rpm scripts will be run from an interactive terminal. I think it is best to just leave these files in place and instead in %preun generate a README-fedora in the clement spool dir which explains that since clement is removed these files _may_ be removed to, but that they could contain valuable data and people should be carefull when removing them. * Remove all comments like this one: #--- #Clement SPEC definition #--- People reading a spec file are supposed to know what a specfile is and what the different sections do, these are not helpfull comments, they are noise. * Put the sections in the specfile in the proper order, see for example the /usr/share/fedora/spectemplate-minimal.spec from the fedora-rpmdevtools package. The proper order is Name Version Release Summary Group %description %setup %build %install %clean %post(un) (and other scripts) %files %changelog -- 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 176253] Review Request: clement-2.1
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: clement-2.1 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176253 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 05:08 EST --- JMP, Your work and responsives above look good (at first glance), so I might be willing to sponsor you. You must understand however that things are currently organised in FE in such a way that once you are sponsored you get full CVS access to all packages. Thus having one good package ready for review usually isn't enough to get you sponsored. There are 2 ways to proceed from here for us (me since I'm concidering sponsering you) to get to learn you better: 1) You review a couple of packages from others see bug 163776 for a list of Review Requests that need a Reviewer, don't worry about not being competent enough todo a review, just add my to the CC-list and I'll watch over your back. 2) Create some more packages and put me in the CC-field of the review request. Or (probably the best) a combiantion of these 2. What also helps is activity in other Fedora projects such as translations etc. -- 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
