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=530473
--- Comment #30 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pahan@hubbitus.info 2010-02-13 12:38:32 EST --- 5) Ok, an this note about upstream state is higly appreciated. I saw it in Patch0 (link to public bugtracker is even good, if it mailed - word about it).
Patch1 have not such note at all. If it is completely Fedora-related Patch - no problem, just mention it in two words too.
6) No, then no. Ok.
(In reply to comment #28)
Looks like qlz is available under the GPL-3, although the upstream packaging is, um, minimal in its license statements. I think a _better_ patch would make it a ./configure option, but I don't think the current state should be a blocker on getting the package in Fedora.
In most cases such modifications of course good idea make more common. But in our case it is Fedora-specific short cut-off patch and If such configuration switch is not interesting for upstream developer I think it absolutely have no worth for us in packaging.
On another note, though: the /etc/lessfs.cfg file is really a _per filesystem_ configuration, not a global one. This is somewhat strange. This is probably a discussion for upstream, but it's important enough that it should get resolved before stuff starts going into production. Instead of /etc/lessfs.cfg, I think there should be /etc/lessfs/sample.cfg, and that should be configured with sensible defaults with the backing storage in (in /var/lib/lessfs/sample, maybe?) instead of the current default "/data".
Yes. This is good mention. /data is not fit in any hierarhial standards. Package also do not create and do not own it! If package try use it package it provided must be required. I think there one more patch and defaults tuning according our hier policy required.
Matthew Miller, thanks for note.