[Bug 544016] Review Request: cbpolicyd - Postfix anti-spam policy server
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=544016 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Blocks||201449(FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution||NOTABUG Last Closed||2010-11-29 12:47:34 --- Comment #8 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2010-11-29 12:47:34 EST --- Cool, thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 544016] Review Request: cbpolicyd - Postfix anti-spam policy server
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=544016 --- Comment #7 from Chris St. Pierre chris.a.st.pie...@gmail.com 2010-11-26 11:26:42 EST --- I've changed jobs since entering this review request and I no longer work with Policyd. Unless someone else wants to take this on it's probably safe to close it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 544016] Review Request: cbpolicyd - Postfix anti-spam policy server
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=544016
--- Comment #6 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2010-11-24 16:18:41 EST
---
Sorry this has sat for so long; I've tried a few times to get someone who knows
anything about postfix to look at this to no avail.
The spec uses those terrible macro versions of plain commands like %{__cp} and
%{__mkdir_p}. Honestly I'd just get rid of them all so the spec is readable,
but if you really want them, please use them consistently and use %{__rm},
%{__mv}, %{__ln_s} and such.
Do we know what upstream would like their software to be called?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- 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 544016] Review Request: cbpolicyd - Postfix anti-spam policy server
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=544016 --- Comment #5 from Chris St. Pierre chris.a.st.pie...@gmail.com 2010-03-04 11:38:30 EST --- Thanks! I've kept the %codename, but changed %define to %global; I got rid of the others %defines. The naming of this project is pretty muddled. It's officially called policyd; but v.2 was codenamed cluebringer; and lots of files are named with cbpolicyd. A spec file is distributed with Policyd (which doesn't conform to the Fedora packaging guidelines) that creates an RPM called 'cluebringer'. People with policyd v1 installed will have an RPM installed called 'policyd'. Although these have never been in Fedora as far as I know, I added the Provides and Obsoletes to ensure backwards compat with these older packages since I couldn't find any sort of guidelines on this. %preun fixed. Given that /etc/cluebringer is the only thing specified in more than one package, I don't know that a -common package makes a lot of sense here. The errors you're getting from rpmlint about permissions are actually due to those config files not being world-readable, but they both contain passwords so it's important that they not be. They'll have to be added to the exception list for that check once I get this package into Fedora. Until then, those errors from rpmlint can be ignored. %attr(0640,...) is appropriate here. %config added where necessary. New spec and SRPM: http://www.nebrwesleyan.edu/people/stpierre/cbpolicyd.spec http://www.nebrwesleyan.edu/people/stpierre/cbpolicyd-2.0.10-5.fc12.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 544016] Review Request: cbpolicyd - Postfix anti-spam policy server
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=544016
James Findley s...@gmx.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||s...@gmx.com
--- Comment #4 from James Findley s...@gmx.com 2010-02-22 12:43:44 EST ---
Ok, rpmlint is throwing up this:
W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 7, tab: line 16)
So that needs to be fixed.
%define ...
You should use %global rather than %define.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define
I'm also not sure they are strictly needed, as they make it harder to read.
Provides: policyd = %{version}, %{codename} = %{version}
Obsoletes: policyd 2
Why are those there? as far as I can see, there is no policyd rpm in the repos,
so the obsoletes isn't needed, and what problem is the Provides: meant to
solve?
%preun
You should probably stop the service before the chkconfig --del here.
%dir %{configdir}
This is specified in two places. Perhaps a -common package?
%attr(0640,root,apache)
should be %attr(640,root,apache)
%{logrotateconfdir}/%{name}
%{crondir}/%{name}
These need the %config macro applied
Other than that, it looks pretty good to me.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- 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 544016] Review Request: cbpolicyd - Postfix anti-spam policy server
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=544016 --- Comment #3 from Chris St. Pierre chris.a.st.pie...@gmail.com 2010-02-08 10:52:17 EST --- There was a bug in 2.0.10 that prevented recently-autowhitelisted hosts from sending properly, with policyd producing a database error and returning DEFER. I've uploaded a new specfile that includes a patch to fix this bug, and a new SRPM for it: http://www.nebrwesleyan.edu/people/stpierre/cbpolicyd.spec http://www.nebrwesleyan.edu/people/stpierre/cbpolicyd-2.0.10-3.fc12.src.rpm I've also added a cron entry to automatically clean up old entries. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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
