[Bug 226407] Merge Review: sendmail
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226407 --- Comment #29 from Miroslav Lichvar 2009-12-15 09:42:14 EDT --- Sorry for taking so long. Most of this (hopefully all blockers) should be fixed in sendmail-8.14.3-9.fc13. I didn't include the msp-authinfo support as it requires special permissions and makemap fails when trying to regenerate the file. Thanks for the 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226407] Merge Review: sendmail
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226407
--- Comment #28 from Paul Howarth 2009-06-14 17:33:06 EDT
---
The /etc/mail/make script handles the authinfo database but not the
msp-authinfo database (see http://www.sendmail.org/m4/msp.html).
Adding this line after the one that handles the authinfo database works for me:
test -f msp-authinfo && makedb msp-authinfo.db && chown smmsp:smmsp
msp-authinfo{,.db} && chmod 640 msp-authinfo{,.db}
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226407] Merge Review: sendmail
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226407
--- Comment #27 from Paul Howarth 2009-06-03 06:07:26 EDT
---
Time to get this review moving again. Here's a refresher of where we stand:
Current rpmlint state
-
Source Package:
W: unversioned-explicit-provides MTA
W: unversioned-explicit-provides smtpdaemon
W: unversioned-explicit-provides server(smtp)
=> All Ok - these are valid virtual provides for which a version would be
inappropriate
W: unversioned-explicit-provides %{_sbindir}/sendmail
W: unversioned-explicit-provides %{_bindir}/mailq
W: unversioned-explicit-provides %{_bindir}/newaliases
W: unversioned-explicit-provides %{_bindir}/rmail
W: unversioned-explicit-provides /usr/lib/sendmail
W: unversioned-explicit-provides %{_sysconfdir}/pam.d/smtp
W: unversioned-explicit-provides %{_mandir}/man1/mailq.1.gz
W: unversioned-explicit-provides %{_mandir}/man1/newaliases.1.gz
W: unversioned-explicit-provides %{_mandir}/man5/aliases.5.gz
W: unversioned-explicit-provides %{_mandir}/man8/sendmail.8.gz
=> Current guidelines on alternatives usage
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/UsingAlternatives, not
yet written into the main guidelines but approved by FPC - see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Minutes/20090414) says to %ghost
these files
rather than using explicit provides.
(I see this is currently under discussion on fedora-packaging)
E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/sendmail
E: hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/usr/lib
E: hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/usr/lib/sendmail.sendmail
E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/sendmail.sendmail
E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/sendmail.sendmail
=> legitimate install of /usr/lib/sendmail for backward script compatibility
sendmail.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 964, tab: line 2)
=> easily fixed, and should be
Main Binary Package:
W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
=> rpmlint confused by a symlink to a binary elsewhere
E: file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/lib64/sasl2/Sendmail.conf
W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /usr/lib64/sasl2/Sendmail.conf
=> This is where cyrus-sasl puts things, so not much choice about this at the
moment
W: non-standard-gid /usr/sbin/sendmail.sendmail smmsp
E: setgid-binary /usr/sbin/sendmail.sendmail smmsp 02755
E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/sendmail.sendmail 02755
E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/mqueue 0700
W: non-standard-uid /var/spool/clientmqueue smmsp
W: non-standard-gid /var/spool/clientmqueue smmsp
E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/clientmqueue 0770
=> non-standard but correct
W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/mail
=> This directory contains only the statistics file, which doesn't need
rotating
W: dangerous-command-in-%post chown
=> %post script is well-tested
W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/sendmail
=> Listens only on localhost out of the box, so OK
E: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/sendmail sm-client
E: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/sendmail sm-client
=> Two daemons running, both can't be coherent at the same time
E: zero-length /var/log/mail/statistics
=> Intended and OK
E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/mail/make
=> Script needs to be editable for people that build their databases in
non-standard ways
Configuration Package:
E: non-executable-script /usr/share/sendmail-cf/sh/makeinfo.sh 0644
=> Doesn't need to be executable due to the way it's called; could shut
=> rpmlint up by removing the shellbang or making it executable though
Documentation Package:
W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/sendmail-8.14.3/contrib/etrn.0
=> Should be recoded to UTF-8 like everything else in Fedora
E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/share/doc/sendmail-8.14.3/contrib/bounce-resender.pl "/usr/local/bin/perl"
E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/doc/sendmail-8.14.3/contrib/etrn.pl
"/usr/local/bin/perl"
E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/doc/sendmail-8.14.3/contrib/smcontrol.pl
"/usr/local/bin/perl"
=> Should be using %{__perl} instead
Milter Runtime Library Package:
W: no-documentation
=> OK, there isn't really any documentation appropriate to this package
7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 18 errors, 25 warnings.
A few other general comments
Please consider adding the patches from Bug #485426 to fix socket descriptor
leaks to child processes.
Requires: chkconfig for %postun isn't needed.
Requires: openssl/openldap aren't needed - automatic library dependencies
suffice.
sendmail-doc and sendmail-cf could be noarch subpackages.
The %attr(0755,root,root) for %{_initrddir}/sendmail isn't necessary because
the initscript is installed with the correct permissions in the first place.
%global is preferred over %define for the sort of use made in this package.
The initscript sources /etc/rc.d/init.d/functions and hence the main package
should have a d
[Bug 226407] Merge Review: sendmail
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: sendmail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226407
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-26 05:58 EST ---
Created an attachment (id=157873)
--> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=157873&action=view)
Patch fixing build issue in current rawhide
The current package in CVS does not build in rawhide. This is because m4 in
rawhide has recently been upgraded to version 1.4.9, and versions of m4 later
than 1.4.8 return a non-zero exit code if a file to be include-d is not found.
One of the patches applied in the Fedora package to the default submit.mc
triggers this problem during the early part of %install and causes the package
build to fail.
The attached patch treats submit.{mc,cf} similarly to sendmail.{mc,cf} and
fixes this problem.
--
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 226407] Merge Review: sendmail
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: sendmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226407 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|normal |medium --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-18 16:01 EST --- Warnung: Datei doppelt aufgelistet: /usr/share/sendmail-cf/README Warnung: Datei doppelt aufgelistet: /usr/share/sendmail-cf/sendmail.schema This means the files above are listed twice. -- 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 226407] Merge Review: sendmail
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: sendmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226407 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-16 13:47 EST --- Because sendmail it basically the reference for all MTAs, I'd kindly ask you to take a look at the thread started by Ville Skyttä: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-April/msg00377.html I have no objections at all for sendmail providing any or all of the three capabilities mentioned in that thread (/usr/sbin/sendmail, MTA, smtpdaemon), but maybe with this occasion we could define some sort of standard, defining the exact meaning of each capability. With that definitions at hand we could then file bugs and hopefully fix mdadm (see also https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226134), mailx and any other programs acting as MTA or having MTA requirements. -- 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 226407] Merge Review: sendmail
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: sendmail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226407
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-16 13:16 EST ---
rpmlint looks OK now apart from:
W: sendmail mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 868, tab: line 2)
some very minor cosmetic changes to the changelog can fix this
The provides for "MTA" and smtpdaemon are well before the rest of the provides
in the spec; it'd be good if they were all together.
Requires(postun) doesn't need to include chkconfig
Requires: openssl (with_tls, with_sasl, with_ldap) is redundant; autodetected
library dependencies will pull in the correct package if sendmail is built
against openssl.
Similarly, Requires: openldap is redundant.
%description doc says that "papers are provided in PostScript(TM) and troff
formats" but it's now a PDF.
The "touch" and initial "chmod" parts of "create db files" in %install are
redundant because the files were created in the immediately preceding part of
the spec, and with the correct permissions.
Installation of %{maildir}/Makefile would be better grouped with the
installation of the other files in %{maildir} above "create db files" rather
than grouped with the initscript installation.
Still no comment on using /etc/mail/Makefile for map rebuilds in %post?
%attr(0755,root,root) for %{_initrddir}/sendmail in $files is redundant as those
are the attributes it would have by default.
So, mainly those are cosmetic changes and in general I'm happy with this.
Any more comments from anyone else before I approve this one?
--
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 226407] Merge Review: sendmail
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: sendmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226407 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-16 05:28 EST --- All done in package sendmail-8.14.1-2. -- 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 226407] Merge Review: sendmail
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: sendmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226407 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-15 12:04 EST --- The directory /usr/share/doc/sendmail-8.14.1 is no longer owned! -- 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226407] Merge Review: sendmail
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: sendmail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226407
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-13 13:11 EST ---
rpmlint output, ignoring things explained away in Comment #2.
W: sendmail unversioned-explicit-provides MTA
=> I'm not convinced about the merits of "Provides: MTA" vs. "Provides:
smtpdaemon", and the discussion on fedora-devel-list didn't seem to lead to any
particular conclusion. It's harmless enough though so I'm not going to quibble
about it.
E: sendmail hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/sendmail
=> This comes from "Provides: /usr/lib/sendmail", is intentional and required
for backwards compatibility (OK).
W: sendmail unversioned-explicit-provides %{_sysconfdir}/pam.d/smtp
W: sendmail unversioned-explicit-provides %{_mandir}/man8/sendmail.8.gz
== Provides for alternatives-based files (OK).
W: sendmail mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 232)
=> Should use either spaces or tabs consistently, not a mixture of the two.
E: sendmail non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/makemap 0555
=> Permission should be 0755 to enable debuginfo extraction.
E: sendmail non-readable /etc/aliases.db 0640
=> This has appeared because the original package explicitly used %attr(0644...
for this file. Harmless because (a) the file is %ghosted and (b) the permissions
will be 0640 on the installed system anyway if the file is created properly.
E: sendmail executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/sendmail
=> Marking initscripts as %config is a contentious subject. I'm against it on
the basis that configurability should be encapsulated in /etc/sysconfig/sendmail
etc. but I can see the merits of the argument the other way too. Do you have a
strong opinion on this or is this just an inheritance from older packaging?
E: sendmail non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/smrsh 0555
=> Permission should be 0755 to enable debuginfo extraction.
E: sendmail postin-without-chkconfig /etc/rc.d/init.d/sendmail
=> /sbin/chkconfig --add sendmail was removed from %post along with the stuff
for upgrading from old versions, needs to be reinstated.
Other comments:
FFR_UNSAFE_SASL still present in sasl2 config - why?
Why is the not-included mysql support stuff still in the spec?
Any thoughts on my suggestion for the %post script near the end of Comment #9?
Finally, the line containing "MSPQOWN=${nameuser}" in the spec has a trailing
space on it. Please remove it, it's been annoying me for ages ;-)
--
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226407] Merge Review: sendmail
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: sendmail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226407
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-12 11:29 EST ---
OK, agree now with _localstatedir:
/usr/lib/rpm/macros:
%_localstatedir %{_prefix}/var
/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/macros:
%_localstatedir /var
I am always looking at /usr/lib/rpm/macros instead of /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/macros
...
The old_setup switch is gone, also update support for sendmail < 8.12.0 with the
corresponding triggers and post script tweaks.
sendmail-8.14.1-1.1 is in rawhide with additional prereq replacements.
--
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226407] Merge Review: sendmail
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: sendmail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226407
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-12 11:14 EST ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> > E: sendmail hardcoded-library-path in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/lib/libmilter.a
> > => false positive, the %install script is removing the library incorrectly
> > => installed there by the upstream build script
> This is wrong, because /usr/lib/libmilter.a gets removed for a 64 bit build,
> because /usr/lib/libmilter.a has to be 32 bit here, but sendmail installs the
> 64
> bit build.
OK, but that's what I meant; the upstream installer puts it in /usr/lib and the
spec puts it in /usr/lib64, so the upstream-installed one needs to be removed on
x86_64.
> symlinks is not usable, because it would create realtive links outside of the
> buildroot.
Are you sure? I tried the patch from Comment #8 before posting it and it looked
to be doing the right thing to me.
> %{_localstatedir} ist not /var it is %{_prefix}/var, ergo /usr/var.
$ rpm --eval '%{_localstatedir}'
/var
> /etc/aliases is not part of the sendmail package.
It should be if the package is supposed to work with %{old_setup} = yes
(obviously not for current Fedora versions but for people trying to rebuild for
older distros). I don't think %{old_setup} should be supported half-heartedly -
either let it work properly or remove it altogether.
> ===> Please have a look at sendmail-8.14.1-1.
Where can I find that? It's not in my just-updated cvs checkout.
--
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226407] Merge Review: sendmail
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: sendmail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226407
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED
Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]|
|m) |
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-12 10:56 EST ---
> E: sendmail hardcoded-library-path in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/lib/libmilter.a
> => false positive, the %install script is removing the library incorrectly
> => installed there by the upstream build script
This is wrong, because /usr/lib/libmilter.a gets removed for a 64 bit build,
because /usr/lib/libmilter.a has to be 32 bit here, but sendmail installs the 64
bit build.
symlinks is not usable, because it would create realtive links outside of the
buildroot.
%{_localstatedir} ist not /var it is %{_prefix}/var, ergo /usr/var.
/etc/aliases is not part of the sendmail package.
===> Please have a look at sendmail-8.14.1-1.
--
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226407] Merge Review: sendmail
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: sendmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226407 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-09 09:38 EST --- I think that if it's OK to provide %_sbindir/sendmail then it should be OK to provide the alternatives-based files too for consistency. Whilst there may well be other packages with dependencies on %_sbindir/sendmail, which isn't going to apply in the cases of manpages, the provides for the manpages cou;d still be useful for someone using say repoquery to find a manpage for a file so as to discover the file format etc. However, I don't see this as a blocker either way. -- 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 226407] Merge Review: sendmail
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: sendmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226407 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-08 05:05 EST --- Uhm. For me a meaningfull result would be that that file isn't provided by any package. A file provide is useful if other packages may depend on it (like %_sbindir/sendmail), but in my opinion it would be better if the package didn't own the alternative symlinks when possible. Not to mention that, for other reduced functionality MTA like esmtp those man pages and the binaries are in the alternate system, even when they don't do anything, so I think it is even more wrong to provide them. -- 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 226407] Merge Review: sendmail
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: sendmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226407 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-08 03:08 EST --- Providing the manpages means that 'rpm -qf /usr/share/man/man1/mailq.1.gz' etc. will return a meaningful result. -- 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 226407] Merge Review: sendmail
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: sendmail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226407
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-07 16:36 EST ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> * all of the alternatives-managed files should be "provided" by sendmail.
Is it really sure? What is the point of providing the man pages?
> %{_mandir}/man1/mailq.1.gz
> %{_mandir}/man1/newaliases.1.gz
> %{_mandir}/man5/aliases.5.gz
> %{_mandir}/man8/sendmail.8.gz
>
--
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 226407] Merge Review: sendmail
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: sendmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226407 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-07 14:25 EST --- Should add "Provides: MTA"; other packages that provide a MTA do that as well (exim, postfix, ssmtp, esmtp (bug filed, pending)) -- 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 226407] Merge Review: sendmail
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: sendmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226407 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? -- 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 226407] Merge Review: sendmail
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: sendmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226407 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] |ct.org) |m) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-21 05:53 EST --- Grr, reporter is nobody; whose bright idea was 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 226407] Merge Review: sendmail
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: sendmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226407 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||ct.org) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-21 05:49 EST --- Review process has changed again; reviewer remains as assignee 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
[Bug 226407] Merge Review: sendmail
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: sendmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226407 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- -- 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 226407] Merge Review: sendmail
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: sendmail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226407
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 07:00 EST ---
Review:
===
- rpmlint output already covered in Comment #2
- package and spec naming OK
- package generally meets guidelines
- license is "Sendmail", not listed on FSF "list of licenses" page but
sendmail *is* listed in the FSF directory of free software
(http://directory.fsf.org/sendmail.html)
- license correctly tagged in spec but license text needs to be packaged
- spec written in English but legibility could be improved
- sources match upstream
- package builds OK on i386 and x86_64 in mock for rawhide
- buildreqs OK
- no locale data included
- no shared libraries included
- not relocatable
- no directory ownership problems
- no permissions problems
- %clean section present and correct
- macro usage is reasonably consistent
- code, not content
- large docs in -doc subpackage
- docs don't affect runtime
- header files and static libraries included in -devel subpackage
(no upstream support for dynamic libraries)
- no pkgconfig files
- devel package has proper versioned dependency on main package
- no libtool archives
- not a GUI app, no desktop file needed
- scriptlets are complex, but well-tested
- all subpackages have proper versioned dependencies on main package
Needs Work:
* LICENSE file must be included as %doc in the main package I think.
I'd also suggest moving FAQ, KNOWNBUGS, README, RELEASE_NOTES in the
same way
* non-standard buildroot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-root
Guidelines now mandate:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* directory creation near the top of %install not using the same macros as
later parts of %install
Suggestions:
* Group: for devel package should be Development/Libraries I think
* %post script could return non-zero exit code - add "exit 0" at end?
* symlinks for the sendmail-specific versions of files managed using
alternatives should point to the sendmail-specific targets rather than the
generic targets, i.e.
/usr/bin/mailq.sendmail -> ../../usr/sbin/sendmail
/usr/bin/newaliases.sendmail -> ../../usr/sbin/sendmail
/usr/lib/sendmail.sendmail -> ../sbin/sendmail
should instead be:
/usr/bin/mailq.sendmail -> ../../usr/sbin/sendmail.sendmail
/usr/bin/newaliases.sendmail -> ../../usr/sbin/sendmail.sendmail
/usr/lib/sendmail.sendmail -> ../sbin/sendmail.sendmail
* all of the alternatives-managed files should be "provided" by sendmail.
Currently, the following are provided:
%{_sbindir}/sendmail
%{_bindir}/mailq
%{_bindir}/newaliases
%{_bindir}/rmail
%{_mandir}/man1/mailq.1.gz
%{_mandir}/man1/newaliases.1.gz
%{_mandir}/man5/aliases.5.gz
Also needed are:
/usr/lib/sendmail
%{_sysconfdir}/pam.d/smtp
%{_mandir}/man8/sendmail.8.gz
* general legibility improvements:
- group the RPM tags at the top of the spec into general, build-time, and
run-time sections
- extra comments, particularly in %install
- dispense with here documents
- consistent indentation
- replace initdir with prefdefined initrddir macro
- use the "symlinks" program to fix up symlinks rather than the scripted
routine that figures out how deep in the hierarchy a particular target
directory is
* removal of old cruft
- the symbols _FFR_WORKAROUND_BROKEN_NAMESERVERS, _FFR_SMTP_SSL,
_FFR_BLOCK_PROXIES, _FFR_UNSAFE_SASL, _FFR_MILTER_ROOT_UNSAFE
no longer appear in the sendmail source and hence can be removed from the
spec
- the MySQL stuff in the spec appears to be there to support building with a
patch maintained outside of the upstream sendmail source:
http://www.palsenberg.com/index.php/plain/projects/sendmail_mysql_map_class
This patch is not included in the Fedora package so why is the rest of the
mysql support included?
* addition of old cruft
- if %{old_setup} is supported, include the aliases file so that just changing
the macro value and rebuilding the spec will work. Otherwise, drop
%{old_setup} altogether.
* is it worth packaging /usr/share/sendmail-cf/cf/README ?
* macro usage:
- should /etc/alises be %{_sysconfdir}/aliases ?
- should /etc/mail be %{_sysconfdir}/mail ?
- should /etc/pam.d be %{_sysconfdir}/pam.d ?
- should /etc/smrsh be %{_sysconfdir}/smrsh ?
- should /var/spool be %{_localstatedir}/spool ?
- files are installed to macro-ised directories in %install but the %files
list has hardcoded directory names like /usr/bin
* timestamps - I suggest trying to preserve all timestamps in upstream files
that get packaged
* scripted edits are done in %install using a mixture of perl and sed scripts,
though they're all just straightforward search and replace changes. Best to
just use sed for that.
* the alternatives call in %post assumes that manpages are compressed using
gzip, and w
[Bug 226407] Merge Review: sendmail
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: sendmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226407 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 06:58 EST --- Created an attachment (id=148408) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148408&action=view) Patch implementing most of the following review suggestions Review to follow shortly. -- 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 226407] Merge Review: sendmail
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: sendmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226407 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 09:50 EST --- I think adding: Provides: /usr/lib/sendmail would achieve the desired result. I think that is how sendmail "owns" /usr/sbin/sendmail, which is also managed by 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 226407] Merge Review: sendmail
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: sendmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226407 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 09:13 EST --- Any chance to own /usr/lib/sendmail somehow else? -- 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 226407] Merge Review: sendmail
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: sendmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226407 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 06:06 EST --- No, /usr/lib/sendmail is generated by alternatives. It could also point to postfix or exim. -- 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 226407] Merge Review: sendmail
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: sendmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226407 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-15 14:37 EST --- /usr/lib/sendmail is a dangling symlink, which should be owned by sendmail, too. Paul, if this should not be relevant for this review, I'll create a own bug report for it, because unowned dangling symlinks are worse. IMHO this is another MUST for approving. -- 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 226407] Merge Review: sendmail
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: sendmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226407 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-15 14:05 EST --- Created an attachment (id=148135) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148135&action=view) Patch addressing most rpmlint issues worth fixing -- 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 226407] Merge Review: sendmail
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: sendmail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226407
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-15 14:04 EST ---
I've run out of time for going through the review checklist today, so here for
the time being are my thoughts on the rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint sendmail-8.14.0-1.src.rpm
W: sendmail summary-ended-with-dot A widely used Mail Transport Agent (MTA).
=> easy fix, remove dot
W: sendmail invalid-license Sendmail
=> whilst rpmlint doesn't include the Sendmail license in its list of approved
=> licenses, the FSF includes sendmail in its directory of free software
=> (http://directory.fsf.org/sendmail.html) so this is OK
W: sendmail no-url-tag
=> easy fix, add URL tag
W: sendmail unversioned-explicit-provides smtpdaemon
=> normal for virtual provides, ignorable
W: sendmail prereq-use /usr/sbin/alternatives
=> use of fine-grained dependencies is normally preferred, but in this case
== the requirement is needed for a triggerpostun clause (as well as the post
=> and postun scripts) and as far as I know there is no way of specifying
=> fine-grained dependencies for trigger scripts, so this is OK
W: sendmail unversioned-explicit-provides %{_sbindir}/sendmail
W: sendmail unversioned-explicit-provides %{_bindir}/mailq
W: sendmail unversioned-explicit-provides %{_bindir}/newaliases
W: sendmail unversioned-explicit-provides %{_bindir}/rmail
W: sendmail unversioned-explicit-provides %{_mandir}/man1/mailq.1.gz
W: sendmail unversioned-explicit-provides %{_mandir}/man1/newaliases.1.gz
W: sendmail unversioned-explicit-provides %{_mandir}/man5/aliases.5.gz
=> all OK as these files are provided in "alternatives" format
W: sendmail prereq-use chkconfig >= 1.3
=> OK, also needed for a trigger script
W: sendmail prereq-use /usr/sbin/useradd /bin/mktemp fileutils gawk sed sh-utils
=> these should be replaced with the appropriate Requires tags for each
=> scriptlet; "fileutils" should probably be "coreutils" these days
W: sendmail prereq-use fsl >= 1.2.0
=> simple "Requires" should do?
W: sendmail prereq-use openssl
=> not needed since rpm's auto-dependency finder picks up the library dep
W: sendmail prereq-use /usr/sbin/saslauthd, openssl
=> "Requires: /usr/sbin/saslauthd" is sufficient
W: sendmail prereq-use openldap, openssl
=> not needed
W: sendmail prereq-use mysql
=> not needed
E: sendmail hardcoded-library-path in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/lib/sendmail.sendmail
=> legitimate install of /usr/lib/sendmail for backward script compatibility
E: sendmail hardcoded-library-path in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/lib/libmilter.a
=> false positive, the %install script is removing the library incorrectly
=> installed there by the upstream build script
E: sendmail hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/sendmail.sendmail
E: sendmail hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/sendmail.sendmail
=> legitimate install of /usr/lib/sendmail for backward script compatibility
W: sendmail macro-in-%changelog preun
W: sendmail macro-in-%changelog triggerpostun
W: sendmail macro-in-%changelog post
=> easy fix, escape the macros in the changelog
W: sendmail mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 239)
=> easy fix, expand the tabs
=> the here document for /etc/mail/access could be split off into a separate
=> source file and retain its tabs
$ rpmlint sendmail-8.14.0-1.x86_64.rpm
W: sendmail summary-ended-with-dot A widely used Mail Transport Agent (MTA).
W: sendmail invalid-license Sendmail
W: sendmail no-url-tag
=> already covered
E: sendmail only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
=> rpmlint confused by a symlink to a binary elsewhere
W: sendmail conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rc.d/init.d/sendmail
E: sendmail executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/sendmail
=> initscript shouldn't be a conffile in the first place. I would argue that
=> any customizations should be possible by changing things in
=> /etc/sysconfig/sendmail. Failing that, use %config(noreplace)
E: sendmail file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/lib64/sasl2/Sendmail.conf
W: sendmail conffile-without-noreplace-flag /usr/lib64/sasl2/Sendmail.conf
=> This is where cyrus-sasl puts things, so not much choice about this
E: sendmail zero-length /etc/mail/mailertable
E: sendmail zero-length /etc/mail/domaintable
E: sendmail zero-length /etc/mail/virtusertable
=> these files intentionally left blank, though perhaps comment lines could
=> be put in them, which would shut rpmlint up
E: sendmail non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/makemap 0555
E: sendmail non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/smrsh 0555
=> should be installed 0755 for debuginfo extraction anyway
E: sendmail non-standard-gid /usr/sbin/sendmail.sendmail smmsp
E: sendmail setgid-binary /usr/sbin/sendmail.sendmail smmsp 02755
E: sendmail non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/sendmail.sendmail 02755
E: sendmail non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/mque
[Bug 226407] Merge Review: sendmail
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: sendmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226407 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-14 13:21 EST --- I'll take a look at this one; I'll have initial comments tomorrow -- 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
