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: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174883
bugzilla(a)redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severity|normal |medium
enrico.scholz(a)informatik.tu-chemnitz.de changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severity|medium |low
------- Additional Comments From enrico.scholz(a)informatik.tu-chemnitz.de 2007-03-31 10:42
EST -------
* Sat Mar 31 2007 Enrico Scholz <enrico.scholz(a)informatik.tu-chemnitz.de> -
2.18.3-5
- require main package by -gnome
- use %_bindir macro instead of /usr/bin to create links to the
compilers
* Sun Mar 18 2007 Enrico Scholz <enrico.scholz(a)informatik.tu-chemnitz.de> -
2.18.3-5
- moved symlinks from /usr/share/distcc/bin to /usr/libexec/distcc/bin
- handle symlinks with %ghost instead of removing them manually
- use CCACHE_PREFIX in the profile script
- followed nonsense^Wrule-of-the-day and removed %config from
init-scripts, added big 'DO NOT MODIFY' banners to it and made it
0555
- ship the icon only in the them directory and apply patch to use
gtk_window_set_icon_name() instead of
gtk_window_set_icon_from_file()
http://ensc.de/fedora/distcc/
=============================
@comment 25
===========
* W: distcc strange-permission distccd.sysv 0755
sounds like a bug in rpmlint... 0755 is a valid, non-strange permission
- The following script
----------------------------------------------------
%preun
test "$1" -ne 0 || rm -f %pkgdatadir/bin/*
----------------------------------------------------
should be treated by %ghost files. And having symlinks marked
as %ghost files is needed anyway, otherwise these symlinks
are regarded as being not owned by any package.
And "rm -f %pkgdatadir/bin/*" (all glob) is too dangerous. Remove
only the files which should really be treated by this rpm.
ok; changed
----------------------------------------------------
[ ! -x /usr/bin/$c ] || ln -sf %_bindir/distcc %pkgdatadir/bin/$c
----------------------------------------------------
- Why do you use "/usr/bin/"$c (this is not macro) and
"%_bindir"/distcc
(here macro %_bindir is used)?
ok; changed
- By the way, while "ln" and "rm" are
marked as dangerous
commands, "unlink" is not marked as such.
... I will not change such things just to silent rpmlint. There are
enough other things (e.g. 'L=r;M=m; ${L}${M} -rf /') how such messages
can be prevented
* E: distcc-server non-standard-gid /var/log/distccd.log distcc
bug in rpmlint to mark such things as errors
E: distcc-server non-root-group-log-file /var/log/distccd.log
distcc
- Fot the latter rpmlint says:
-----------------------------------------------------
If you need log files owned by a non-root group, just create a subdir in
/var/log and put your log files in it.
-----------------------------------------------------
Perhaps you have to create /var/log/distccd directory and
move the log files under the directory, however I can see
some other packages putting log files under /var/log with
non-standard gid......
IMO, it is overkill to create for every single logfile an own directory.
It will break logrotation when for example 'olddir .old' is specified in
a global configuration file and administrator did not created '.old' in
the directory.
Beside this, changing the default /var/log/distccd.log logfile would
complicate things because it is hardcoded in some places.
* W: distcc-server dangerous-command-in-%post chown
- The corresponding scripts are:
-----------------------------------------------------
%post server
test -e '%logfile' || {
touch '%logfile'
chown root:%username '%logfile'
chmod 0620 '%logfile'
}
-----------------------------------------------------
If the %logfile should always exist, then this should
not be handled by %ghost, but should be handled by
* this file should be touched at %install stage
* should be handled by %verify(not md5 size mtime)
* and chown call should be removed.
I think, the '%config %ghost' mark are the only correct way to handle
logfiles. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Logfiles
- Well, I remember this was discussed on fedora-????-list
recently, and what was the conclusion?? Should rcinit file
be marked as %config? (Is this really a %config file?)
Ok; I applied this nonsense-of-the-day rule...
W: distcc-server-xinetd summary-not-capitalized xinetd initscripts
for the distcc daemon
------------------------------------------------------
- Simply change to "Xinetd initscripts...."
I use 'The xinetd initscripts'; capitalizing 'xinetd' looks very
odd...
W: distcc conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/profile.d/distcc.sh
W: distcc-server conffile-without-noreplace-flag /var/log/distccd.log
E: distcc-server incoherent-logrotate-file /etc/logrotate.d/distccd
W: distcc-server-sysv no-documentation
E: distcc-server-sysv non-standard-dir-perm /var/run/distccd 0775
W: distcc-server-sysv incoherent-init-script-name distccd
W: distcc-server-xinetd no-documentation
-----------------------------------------------------
... However, once please comment on these warnings.
Looks like bugs in rpmlint
* For GTK+ icon cache
- Well, please check again the scriptlets for "GTK+ icon cache"
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets
ok; changed (I thought this has been changed recently)
# ignore ownership of the %_datadir/icons/... directories; Core is
# too broken to add good Requires(pre/postun).
-----------------------------------------------------
- If you mind, you can simply add to -gnome package:
Requires: hicolor-icon-theme
thx; I did not saw this tree in the wood of packages owning
%_datadir/icons/hicolor
@comment 26
===========
1) Is it really necessary to split off the init scripts and xinetd
stuff into sub-packages?
yes; server works without xinetd or initscripts and both packages are
adding additional dependencies
2) distcc.sh is incredibly unreadable. And broken, it will fail on
x86_64 because ccache is in /usr/lib64/ccache
thx; fixed
Perhaps libexec is the place both ccache and distcc should be
playing their gcc hijacking tricks.
thx; I moved distcc stuff into libexec/
CCACHE_PREFIX=distcc
thx; I was not aware of this option and use it now in the profile
file. Nevertheless, this file is yet more complex now
3) What does release_func accomplish? It obfusticates the fact that
the release tag violates policy.
sorry; I can not follow you here
--
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.