[Bug 180571] Review Request: puppet
by Red Hat Bugzilla
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: puppet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180571
jpmahowald(a)gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink(a)leemhuis.info |jpmahowald(a)gmail.com
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779
nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From jpmahowald(a)gmail.com 2006-07-08 00:03 EST -------
Built against 1.3.3-1 facter.
rpmlint is noisy.
E: puppet zero-length /usr/share/doc/puppet-0.18.2/examples/root/etc/configfile
E: puppet zero-length /usr/share/doc/puppet-0.18.2/examples/root/etc/otherfile
Ignore.
E: puppet non-standard-uid /var/lib/puppet puppet
E: puppet non-standard-gid /var/lib/puppet puppet
E: puppet non-standard-uid /var/log/puppet puppet
E: puppet non-standard-gid /var/log/puppet puppet
E: puppet non-standard-uid /var/run/puppet puppet
E: puppet non-standard-gid /var/run/puppet puppet
The user/group was added. Ignore.
W: puppet doc-file-dependency
/usr/share/doc/puppet-0.18.2/examples/root/bin/sleeper /usr/bin/ruby
Required for puppet, ok.
E: puppet incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/puppet puppet}
W: puppet mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs
Cosmetic.
W: puppet-server no-documentation
Fine.
W: puppet-server incoherent-init-script-name puppetmaster
Not puppet, ok.
Defines %ruby_sitelibdir as per guidlines.
- license (GPL) OK, text in %doc, matches source
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream
- package compiles on devel (x86)
- no missing BR
Do you need both of:
Requires: ruby >= 1.8.1 and
Requires: ruby(abi) = 1.8 ?
Merely redundant if so.
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all directories that it creates
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- %clean ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no need for .desktop file
APPROVED
--
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.
17 years, 8 months
[Bug 176253] Review Request: clement-2.1
by Red Hat Bugzilla
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 j.w.r.degoede(a)hhs.nl 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-5d1681fa7cf3714ad...
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.
17 years, 8 months