[Bug 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719 Bug 1021719 depends on bug 1123184, which changed state. Bug 1123184 Summary: Review Request: libasr - Asynchronous DNS resolving library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123184 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719 Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1123184 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123184 [Bug 1123184] Review Request: libasr - Asynchronous DNS resolving library -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719 --- Comment #34 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719 Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #33 from Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: opensmtpd New Branches: epel7 Owners: dfateyev -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|opensmtpd-5.4.2p1-1.fc20|opensmtpd-5.4.2p1-1.el6 --- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- opensmtpd-5.4.2p1-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|opensmtpd-5.4.1p1-1.el6 |opensmtpd-5.4.2p1-1.fc19 --- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- opensmtpd-5.4.2p1-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|opensmtpd-5.4.2p1-1.fc19|opensmtpd-5.4.2p1-1.fc20 --- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- opensmtpd-5.4.2p1-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719 --- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- opensmtpd-5.4.2p1-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/opensmtpd-5.4.2p1-1.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|opensmtpd-5.4.1p1-1.fc18|opensmtpd-5.4.1p1-1.el6 --- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- opensmtpd-5.4.1p1-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|opensmtpd-5.4.1p1-1.fc20|opensmtpd-5.4.1p1-1.fc19 --- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- opensmtpd-5.4.1p1-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|opensmtpd-5.4.1p1-1.fc19|opensmtpd-5.4.1p1-1.fc18 --- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- opensmtpd-5.4.1p1-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||opensmtpd-5.4.1p1-1.fc20 Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- opensmtpd-5.4.1p1-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719 Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no changed: What|Removed |Added CC||terje...@phys.ntnu.no --- Comment #20 from Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no --- Nice work Denis! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- opensmtpd-5.4.1p1-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/opensmtpd-5.4.1p1-1.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- opensmtpd-5.4.1p1-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/opensmtpd-5.4.1p1-1.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- opensmtpd-5.4.1p1-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/opensmtpd-5.4.1p1-1.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719 --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- opensmtpd-5.4.1p1-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/opensmtpd-5.4.1p1-1.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719 Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2013-12-12 17:50:32 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719 --- Comment #19 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719 Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #18 from Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: opensmtpd Short Description: OpenSMTPD - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server Owners: dfateyev Branches: f18 f19 f20 el6 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719 --- Comment #13 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com --- All the issues from comment 11 appear fixed. ;) However, I see a few new rpmlint complaints: opensmtpd.i686: E: missing-call-to-chdir-with-chroot /usr/sbin/smtpctl opensmtpd.i686: E: missing-call-to-chdir-with-chroot /usr/libexec/opensmtpd/queue-ram opensmtpd.i686: E: missing-call-to-chdir-with-chroot /usr/libexec/opensmtpd/scheduler-stub opensmtpd.i686: E: missing-call-to-chdir-with-chroot /usr/libexec/opensmtpd/scheduler-ram opensmtpd.i686: E: missing-call-to-chdir-with-chroot /usr/libexec/opensmtpd/queue-null opensmtpd.i686: E: missing-call-to-chdir-with-chroot /usr/libexec/opensmtpd/queue-stub opensmtpd.i686: E: missing-call-to-chdir-with-chroot /usr/sbin/smtpd $ rpmlint -I missing-call-to-chdir-with-chroot missing-call-to-chdir-with-chroot: This executable appears to call chroot without using chdir to change the current directory. This is likely an error and permits an attacker to break out of the chroot by using fchdir. While that's not always a security issue, this has to be checked. Could you ask upstream on this? Also, a nitpick: opensmtpd.i686: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 5.4.1p1-1.denf ['5.4.1p1-1.fc21', '5.4.1p1-1'] drop the 'denf' in changelogs? We are getting close here. ;) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719 --- Comment #14 from Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com --- Interesting, these errors don't appear on 64bit version of packages, so I haven't seen them last time checking with 'rpmlint'. OK, I'll contact upstream regarding this issue. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719 --- Comment #15 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com --- Yeah, I just happened to check with a 32bit build this time... so yeah, could be a difference somehow between the two arches. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@zarb.org --- Comment #16 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org --- That's a bug in rpmlint, who was detecting syscall only on 64 bits, and not 32 bits. I fixed it in git. ( now, i need to do the same for arm ) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719 Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #17 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com --- So, I don't see any more blockers here... please fix the changelog versions before importing, but otherwise this package is APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719 --- Comment #12 from Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com --- All fixed, please look at the latest scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6267548 . This is the recently released 5.4.1 stable version. Current spec adapted both for RHEL and Fedora: http://www.fateyev.com/RPMS/Fedora19/testing/opensmtpd.spec (I have used 'fedora' and 'rhel' conditionals), there are also some changes in initscripts and PAM file replacement. Some notes: 1) As for the E: missing-call-to-setgroups, here is the developer's answer for the reference: Unlike other delivery backends where we do setgroups() as can be seen in smtpd.c:forkmda():1117, we can't do the same with mail.local which requires root to write in the spooler but also for its locking (think NFS amongst other weird but popular use-cases). mail.local never really drops privileges, it simply reduces them as a mean to reduce the code that runs as root but it's a best effort. 2) E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/empty/smtpd 0711L - actually the same as for openssh directory (var/empty/sshd), so I haven't changed it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719
--- Comment #11 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com ---
Sorry for the delay here...
Outstanding things to fix (mentioned in more detail below with !):
1. You need to own the /etc/opensmtpd and /usr/libexec/opensmtpd directories.
You can either add them as %dir to files, or remove the /* from them.
2. Are you planning on maintaining this in EPEL as well? If so, you
could look at putting conditionals around the sysvinit script. If not,
I would remove the sysvinit subpackage entirely. There's 0 point in
having it if you aren't shipping in EPEL/rhel, and the FPC recently
changed guidelines to disallow shipping them at all.
3. The debuginfo file lacks sources. Either -g isn't getting used to compile
or something is stripping the binaries before the debuginfo is generated.
4. There's a few rpmlint issues to look into. Some are bogus, but a few of
them actually look like things to be fixed. missing-call-to-setgroups,
non-conffile-in-etc, use-old-pam-stack at least.
5. Please use %global instead of %define.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GPL (v2 or later), Unknown or generated, BSD (4 clause), ISC,
BSD (3 clause), BSD (2 clause), BSD. 7 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/kevin/opensmtpd/review-
opensmtpd/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/libexec/opensmtpd, /etc/opensmtpd
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/opensmtpd,
/usr/libexec/opensmtpd
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is known to not require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot:
[Bug 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719 --- Comment #10 from Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com --- Updates: prerelease tag assigned as suggested; libexecdir detection/usage and path substitution were corrected in upstream. PIE support along with various small fixes also recently added by core developers. Updated spec: http://www.fateyev.com/RPMS/Fedora19/testing/opensmtpd.spec Source RPM built against the latest snapshot: http://www.fateyev.com/RPMS/Fedora19/testing/SRPMS/opensmtpd-5.4.1p1-0.1.201311182347.fc19.denf.src.rpm Koji scratch build for this snapshot (if anybody interested): https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6197629 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719 --- Comment #9 from Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com --- Quick updates: Why a prerelease? Is there some compelling thing in the prerelease thats needed over the last stable? The thing is the latest stable caused a lot of portable issues and required some patches - that's the reason why I'm trying to avoid it and not to package it. All the things needed are integrated into recent snapshots. The next stable release which comes in the next week or two will provide all that functionality out of box - when it comes I'll switch the prerelease support off, and planning to package only stable versions in the future. Meanwhile, working with prerelease builds allows to prepare valid spec which meets all the requirements by then. Since this is a long running process, might be worth adding hardening flags? I'll investigate it (according my latest e-mail answer). Seems there is an issue in Opensmtpd portable layer, just filled a bug. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719 Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ke...@scrye.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #7 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com --- Will try and get you a formal review soon. :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719
--- Comment #8 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com ---
some general quick questions:
- Why a prerelease? Is there some compelling thing in the prerelease thats
needed over the last stable?
- Prerelease versioning is a bit off. See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages
Something like:
Version:5.3.4p1
Release:0.1%{?prerelease:.%{prerelease}}%{?dist}
?
- Since this is a long running process, might be worth adding hardening flags?
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#PIE
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719 Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ke...@scrye.com --- Comment #6 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com --- I'll try and review and look at sponsoring in the next few days. ;) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719 --- Comment #5 from Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com --- Introduced `shadow-utils` and `chkconfig` in Requires section (since `alternatives` is located in `chkconfig`). Changed macro binary calls to direct calls. Updated spec: http://www.fateyev.com/RPMS/Fedora19/testing/opensmtpd.spec Source RPM built against the latest snapshot: http://www.fateyev.com/RPMS/Fedora19/testing/SRPMS/opensmtpd-5.3.3p1-1.201310231634.fc19.denf.src.rpm 9: As for ListenStream: perhaps, but I'm not sure whether this behavior fully supported due OpenSMTPD portable nature (needs more investigation). I provide more common systemd file. Ok. I will ask some systemd upstream folks. I think OpenSMTPD core developers now using .sock mostly for internal purposes. Really doubt it would listen to anything coming there from 3rd party. Actually, systemd service file now provides all basic functionality for the service management. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719 Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aal...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- *** Bug 825415 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719 --- Comment #3 from Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com --- Thanks for reviewing. 1,3,4,7,8 are fixed, packages and updated spec are available on the same location from the first post. 2: I haven't found any recommendations in guidelines. Do these macros violate any rules or anything? 5: As for `useradd/groupadd` stuff, I've seen it in postfix and exim packages. I think this dependency is obvious but I can add it anyway if needed (?) 6: Why not? It won't be installed automatically, and moreover, the packaging guidelines mention and don't forbid them. 9: As for ListenStream: perhaps, but I'm not sure whether this behavior fully supported due OpenSMTPD portable nature (needs more investigation). I provide more common systemd file. 10: It's already there, please see `opensmtpd.service` in source RPM provided. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719 --- Comment #4 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- 2: I haven't found any recommendations in guidelines. Do these macros violate any rules or anything? No. But now we dont use it. As these are often used in old RPM, I will have a special feeling when seeing these. BTW using 2 chars rm instead of 6 chars rm macro can help save your place. 5: As for `useradd/groupadd` stuff, I've seen it in postfix and exim packages. I think this dependency is obvious but I can add it anyway if needed (?) They belong to shadow-utils, so should be required. You can use any type you want. I prefer shadow style. 6: Why not? It won't be installed automatically, and moreover, the packaging guidelines mention and don't forbid them. Hmm.. Welcome ideas from others. 9: As for ListenStream: perhaps, but I'm not sure whether this behavior fully supported due OpenSMTPD portable nature (needs more investigation). I provide more common systemd file. Ok. I will ask some systemd upstream folks. 10: It's already there, please see `opensmtpd.service` in source RPM provided. Sorry, I shouldn't paste this line. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719
Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cicku...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
1. Remove Buildroot/%{__rm} -rf %{buildroot}/%clean
2. RPM can handle paths well, you should use make but not %{__make} now, same
like %{__rm}/%{__mv}/%{__ln_s}
3. Ship %doc INSTALL is useless IMO.
4. %{_mandir}/man5/*.5.gz
%{_mandir}/man8/*.8.gz
--
%{_mandir}/man5/*.5*
%{_mandir}/man8/*.8*
5. Requires(pre):%{_sbindir}/groupadd
Requires(pre):%{_sbindir}/useradd
--
Requires(pre):shadow-utils
6. Only a few packages still ship sysv scripts
http://pkgs.org/search/?keyword=-sysvinitsearch_on=namedistro=80
Do we really need it?
7. [rpmaker@fab SPECS]$ rpm -E %_localstatedir
/var
8. install with -p option to preserve timestamp.
9. Do we need a systemd socket file like:
[Unit]
Description=OpenSMTPD Socket
[Socket]
ListenStream=/var/run/smtpd.sock
[Install]
WantedBy=sockets.target
10. Do we need to set conflicts with other packages in systemd service file
like
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/postfix.git/tree/postfix.service ?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
