Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: djbdns - A Domain Name System by D. J. Bernstein Alias: djbdns
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724
Summary: Review Request: djbdns - A Domain Name System by D. J. Bernstein Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: i386 URL: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/djbdns-1.05.tar.gz OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: pj.pandit@yahoo.co.in QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
`djbdns' is a Domain Name System written by the eminent author of qmail, D. J. Bernstein. djbdns is also suppose to be utmost secure like qmail.
SPEC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/djbdns.spec SORC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/djbdns-1.05.tar.gz SRPM: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/djbdns-1.05-1.fc10.src.rpm
`djbdns' depends on another package called daemontools, which is again written by D J Bernstein.
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=480724
--- Comment #1 from _pjp_ pj.pandit@yahoo.co.in 2009-01-20 01:26:57 EDT --- Daemontools package is open for review
at: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480727
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=480724
Itamar Reis Peixoto itamar@ispbrasil.com.br changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |itamar@ispbrasil.com.br Flag| |fedora-review?
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=480724
Itamar Reis Peixoto itamar@ispbrasil.com.br changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |480727
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=480724
Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rc040203@freenet.de
--- Comment #2 from Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de 2009-01-20 02:27:09 EDT --- Some remarks:
This package will need a lot of love to let it pass a review.
* %files .. /usr/local/etc/* /usr/local/bin/* => Distro packages must not contrain files below /usr/local
* Package doesn't seem to honor RPM_OPT_FLAGS.
* *.tar.gz doesn't match upstream (http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/djbdns-1.05.tar.gz)
* I can't spot any license (I am not sure, but haven't there been some legal issues with DJB's works?). Blocking FE-LEGAL.
Finally: Does this package still have an active upstream? I thought, DJB discontinued all his works.
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=480724
Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |182235
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=480724
--- Comment #3 from Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de 2009-01-20 03:01:21 EDT --- Debian's package database had the missing legal link: http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/d/djbdns/djbdns_1.05-4/djbdn...
=> Put a similar document as Debian does into your rpm.
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=480724
--- Comment #4 from _pjp_ pj.pandit@yahoo.co.in 2009-01-20 04:26:06 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3)
Debian's package database had the missing legal link: http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/d/djbdns/djbdns_1.05-4/djbdn...
=> Put a similar document as Debian does into your rpm.
Sure, I'll put that.
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=480724
Bug 480724 depends on bug 480727, which changed state.
Bug 480727 Summary: Review Request: daemontools: is a collection of tools for managing UNIX services. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480727
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |NOTABUG
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=480724
Itamar Reis Peixoto itamar@ispbrasil.com.br changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |itamar@ispbrasil.com.br
--- Comment #5 from Itamar Reis Peixoto itamar@ispbrasil.com.br 2009-02-06 06:30:55 EDT --- Ralf
you can remove FE-LEGAL
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2007-November/msg00023.html
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=480724
Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tcallawa@redhat.com Blocks|182235 |
--- Comment #6 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com 2009-02-12 13:38:59 EDT --- This code is in the Public Domain, should not be a legal issue as long as it is marked properly in the spec file (which it is). Lifting FE-Legal.
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=480724
Mark Johnson johnsonm@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |johnsonm@gmail.com
--- Comment #7 from Mark Johnson johnsonm@gmail.com 2009-03-02 17:09:30 EDT --- Here is a maintained fork of djbdns (and daemontools and ucspi-tcp):
http://sourceforge.net/projects/zinq
DISCLAIMER: I'm the maintainer / originator of said fork.
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=480724
--- Comment #8 from _pjp_ pj.pandit@yahoo.co.in 2009-03-05 02:14:05 EDT ---
New review request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488681
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=480724
--- Comment #9 from Itamar Reis Peixoto itamar@ispbrasil.com.br 2009-03-05 06:52:16 EDT --- *** Bug 488681 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
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=480724
Itamar Reis Peixoto itamar@ispbrasil.com.br changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Platform|i386 |All AssignedTo|itamar@ispbrasil.com.br |nobody@fedoraproject.org Flag|fedora-review? |
--- Comment #10 from Itamar Reis Peixoto itamar@ispbrasil.com.br 2009-03-05 06:54:54 EDT --- you don't need a new review request for the same package.
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=480724
--- Comment #11 from _pjp_ pj.pandit@yahoo.co.in 2009-03-05 07:37:00 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10)
you don't need a new review request for the same package.
Oh, okay. Here are the links to the new updated soruce and rpms for review.
SPEC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/djbdns.spec SORC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/djbdns-1.05.1.tar.gz SRPM: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/djbdns-1.05.1-1.fc10.src.rpm
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=480724
--- Comment #12 from Mark Johnson johnsonm@gmail.com 2009-03-05 12:01:40 EDT --- I know I'm probably butting in where I'm not wanted, but...
At the moment, via this URL:
http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/djbdns.spec
I see:
License: GPLv2+
Is that a mistake or do you intend the changes you have made for this package under the GPL?
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=480724
--- Comment #13 from Mark Johnson johnsonm@gmail.com 2009-03-05 12:04:30 EDT --- (In reply to comment #12)
I know I'm probably butting in where I'm not wanted, but...
At the moment, via this URL:
http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/djbdns.spec
I see:
License: GPLv2+
Is that a mistake or do you intend the changes you have made for this package under the GPL?
Coherent grammer:
Is that a mistake or do you intend the changes you have made for this package to be covered by the GPL? If the latter, should the license for the whole package really be listed as GPL when the original source is Public Domain?
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=480724
--- Comment #14 from Mark Johnson johnsonm@gmail.com 2009-03-05 13:36:40 EDT --- Quoting README from:
http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/djbdns-1.05.1.tar.gz
Hello all,
I am pleased to release this *new* version of djbdns-1.05.1. Djbdns is a fully-fledged Domain Name System(DNS), originally written by the eminent author of qmail, Dr. D J Bernstein. This new release is a complete makeover to the original source(djbdns-1.05) and is meant to make life a lot more pleasant. The notable changes so far are in the set-up & configuration steps. Also, this new release is distributed under the GNU General Public Licence. See ChangeLog for more details.
Whoah...is it legal to do that? Take public domain software, make some changes, and distribute the entire result under the GPL?
Note also that DJB's original copyright notice has been removed and I see no mention of his release of djbdns into the public domain.
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=480724
--- Comment #15 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com 2009-03-05 13:43:35 EDT --- (In reply to comment #14)
Whoah...is it legal to do that? Take public domain software, make some changes, and distribute the entire result under the GPL?
Absolutely. Anyone can pick up public domain software and do _whatever_ they want to it. Relicense it, make it proprietary, turn it into a play, wear it as a hat, anything.
Note also that DJB's original copyright notice has been removed and I see no mention of his release of djbdns into the public domain.
While it might be good to mention that it is based on the Public Domain djbdns, there is no requirement that he do this. Also, there is no longer a copyright notice, because when DJB put it into the Public Domain, he officially abandoned copyright on the work.
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=480724
--- Comment #16 from Mark Johnson johnsonm@gmail.com 2009-03-05 14:34:42 EDT --- (In reply to comment #15)
(In reply to comment #14)
Whoah...is it legal to do that? Take public domain software, make some changes, and distribute the entire result under the GPL?
Absolutely. Anyone can pick up public domain software and do _whatever_ they want to it. Relicense it, make it proprietary, turn it into a play, wear it as a hat, anything.
Yes, but the original public domain bits are still public domain, and not covered by the GPL:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CombinePublicDomainWithGPL
Legal or not, my personal opinion is that commingling public domain and GPL code is just asking for trouble.
Note also that DJB's original copyright notice has been removed and I see no mention of his release of djbdns into the public domain.
While it might be good to mention that it is based on the Public Domain djbdns, there is no requirement that he do this. Also, there is no longer a copyright notice, because when DJB put it into the Public Domain, he officially abandoned copyright on the work.
Your own comments:
"This code is in the Public Domain, should not be a legal issue as long as it is marked properly in the spec file (which it is). Lifting FE-Legal."
Has there some further legal review since you made those remarks?
Required or not, I'd think it appropriate to reference DJB's explicit abandonment of his copyright when removing his original copyright notice.
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=480724
--- Comment #17 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com 2009-03-05 15:34:45 EDT --- The original public domain work is Public Domain. A modified, or derived work, can be under any license that the new author of the work wants. Since Public Domain is not a license, but the absence of a license (or if it helps you wrap your brain around it, the granting of all possible rights), it doesn't matter.
My comments reflected upon an entirely Public Domain work, because we need to track that in the spec file somehow. If someone came along and made changes to a public domain work under GPLv2+, it would be fine to say:
License: GPLv2+
because that is in every way functionally identical to:
License: GPLv2+ and Public Domain
As to removing DJB's copyright notice, DJB did that. It would be nice to reference his message in which he took that action.
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=480724
--- Comment #18 from Mark Johnson johnsonm@gmail.com 2009-03-05 16:34:17 EDT --- (In reply to comment #17)
The original public domain work is Public Domain. A modified, or derived work, can be under any license that the new author of the work wants. Since Public Domain is not a license, but the absence of a license (or if it helps you wrap your brain around it, the granting of all possible rights), it doesn't matter.
Say there exists a source code file within pjp's djbdns-1.05.1.tar.gz that is identical to version in DJB's djbdns-1.05.tar.gz available at http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/djbdns-1.05.tar.gz. Are you saying that if that file is obtained from pjp's djbdns-1.05.1.tar.gz, the terms of the GPL apply if that file, and only that file, are incorporated in a further derived work?
As to removing DJB's copyright notice, DJB did that. It would be nice to reference his message in which he took that action.
DJB did not make this tarball available:
http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/djbdns-1.05.1.tar.gz
which is a modified version his original djbdns-1.05 with a new README file that does not have his original copyright statement (But does have a copy of the GPL v3 in COPYING). Since pjp did, I think it would be prudent to also reference this URL and / or the statement found there relevant to djbdns in future releases:
http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html
Otherwise, I think somebody could get the idea that DJB released djbdns under the GPL, which is not the case. Also, if the License is intended to be GPLv2+, should COPYING really include v3?
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=480724
--- Comment #19 from _pjp_ pj.pandit@yahoo.co.in 2009-03-05 23:52:40 EDT --- Hello guys,
Boy...wow, I was kind of expecting all this fuss over public-domain & licensing to happen when I included the COPYING file in the source. It feels like a Deja-vu now. :)
I think it would be prudent to also reference this URL and / or the statement found there relevant to djbdns in future releases:
Anyway, Mark, I think it's okay to take a public domain soruce, change it and release it as licensed version. If I'm not wrong, I guess openDNS is based on `dnscache'. But still if you want me to put that link in the README, I'll do that.
Otherwise, I think somebody could get the idea that DJB released djbdns under the GPL, which is not the case.
Well that seems less likely, for one, the source is distributed from my page, and second the README quotes me says "I'm pleased to release this *new* version..." along with my email address.
Also, if the License is intended to be GPLv2+, should COPYING really include v3?
Ah, that should be okay; that's why the `+' sign is there.
Thank you!
PS: I'm kind of more looking forward to some technical review, folks.
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=480724
--- Comment #20 from _pjp_ pj.pandit@yahoo.co.in 2009-03-06 00:54:58 EDT --- (In reply to comment #19)
But still if you want me to put that link in the README, I'll do that.
Please consider these files with the given link mentioned in the README and the spec file.
SPEC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/djbdns.spec SORC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/djbdns-1.05.1.tar.gz SRPM: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/djbdns-1.05.1-2.fc10.src.rpm
Thank you.
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=480724
--- Comment #21 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com 2009-03-06 08:42:47 EDT --- (In reply to comment #18)
Say there exists a source code file within pjp's djbdns-1.05.1.tar.gz that is identical to version in DJB's djbdns-1.05.tar.gz available at http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/djbdns-1.05.tar.gz. Are you saying that if that file is obtained from pjp's djbdns-1.05.1.tar.gz, the terms of the GPL apply if that file, and only that file, are incorporated in a further derived work?
This is generally how the GPL works.
If you take file A, which is under Public Domain (all rights granted to everyone) and file B, which is under some version of the GPL, and you compile them together to generate binary C, binary C is under the terms of the GPL, because the GPL is by far the more restrictive license, and the terms of file A are all being met by it.
The same is true if file A is under a permissive license, such as MIT or BSD, because the GPL's coverage meets those terms.
This is precisely why the FSF (and Fedora) tracks GPL compatiblity on other licenses.
With some license pairings, this can get even trickier, because it may be possible for file A and file B to have licenses which have differing grants and restrictions, which, while neither prevents the other from being honored, results in the need to honor the terms of both A and B simultaneously (technically, we're always doing this, but when one covers both, we simplify it to one). In those cases, we note it in the spec file with a:
License: Foo and Bar
style notation.
We also use that notation in cases like this:
File A is MIT. It is compiled by itself into a standalone binary. File B, C, D, E, and F are all GPL. They get compiled together into a standalone binary. Both binaries end up in the same package. In this case, the spec License tag would be "MIT and GPL".
As to removing DJB's copyright notice, DJB did that. It would be nice to reference his message in which he took that action.
DJB did not make this tarball available:
No, but I'm pretty sure the latest release for all of his code drops took out the copyright statement. He has also issued blanket
DJB clearly understands US Public Domain law, as can be seen here:
http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html
He writes:
"The normal way to abandon a copyright is to make a clear written dedication of the work to the public domain."
He then does exactly this, here:
http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html
"What are the distribution terms for djbdns? 2007.12.28: I hereby place the djbdns package (in particular, djbdns-1.05.tar.gz, with MD5 checksum 3147c5cd56832aa3b41955c7a51cbeb2) into the public domain. The package is no longer copyrighted."
Thus, there is no need to retain his copyright statement, as it clearly no longer applies. To re-add it would be incorrect and misleading.
Otherwise, I think somebody could get the idea that DJB released djbdns under the GPL, which is not the case.
Given that he has abandoned copyright entirely, he no longer has any say in what anyone does with it.
Also, if the License is intended to be GPLv2+, should COPYING really include v3?
No, but upstream should correct that mistake.
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=480724
--- Comment #22 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com 2009-03-06 08:44:24 EDT --- That sentence that trails off should be "blanket statements to this effect."
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=480724
--- Comment #23 from Mark Johnson johnsonm@gmail.com 2009-03-06 11:17:46 EDT --- (In reply to comment #19)
Anyway, Mark, I think it's okay to take a public domain soruce, change it and release it as licensed version. If I'm not wrong, I guess openDNS is based on `dnscache'. But still if you want me to put that link in the README, I'll do that.
I don't think that "those other guys did it so it must be okay" is much of a justification.
In any event, I'm just giving you advice. I've got zip for authority here. Consider it, ignore it, your call.
PS: I'm kind of more looking forward to some technical review, folks.
Unfortunately, I'm afraid to examine your code closely for fear of being accused of being a GPL violator later on down the road.
I will say that over the years, the djbdns community has identified and fixed a few issues. Such as the ones that hit the front page of Slashdot the other day. You might wish to take a look at those. While you may have no legal obligation to credit the originators of any of those fixes, personally, I'd consider it very rude not to do so.
There is more to djbdns that dnscache. Somebody who wishes to use dnscache might not be interested in tinydns/axfrdns and vice versa (not to mention pickdns and walldns). I think Debian does package it all up in one bundle, but I don't know if it's all turned on by default when the package is installed. In the past, some RPM distributors have made separate packages for each djbdns component.
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=480724
--- Comment #24 from Mark Johnson johnsonm@gmail.com 2009-03-06 12:11:55 EDT --- (In reply to comment #21)
This is generally how the GPL works.
If you take file A, which is under Public Domain (all rights granted to everyone) and file B, which is under some version of the GPL, and you compile them together to generate binary C, binary C is under the terms of the GPL, because the GPL is by far the more restrictive license, and the terms of file A are all being met by it.
I didn't ask about a hypothetical binary C. To use your terminology for this thought experiment, do the terms of the GPL apply to file A, if file A and only file A, is obtained from pjp's djbdns-1.05.1.tar.gz, which includes a copy of v3 of the GPL?
No, but I'm pretty sure the latest release for all of his code drops took out the copyright statement. He has also issued blanket
To my knowledge, the last release of djbdns was 8 years ago and he did not issue a new release when he abandoned his copyright. The tarball at:
http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/djbdns-1.05.tar.gz
still contains this in the README:
djbdns 1.05 20010211 Copyright 2001 D. J. Bernstein
Thus, there is no need to retain his copyright statement, as it clearly no longer applies. To re-add it would be incorrect and misleading.
I did not say his copyright statement should be retained. I'm just trying to say that when it is removed (as it already has been), his declaration at
http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html
should be referenced explicitly.
Given that he has abandoned copyright entirely, he no longer has any say in what anyone does with it.
No, but it's no excuse to get sloppy and give people the wrong idea, either. I've got my own public domain fork of djbdns and I would very much appreciate it if pjp was very clear that the original material he based his fork on was public domain.
In any event, we're seriously cluttering this bug/ticket up. Suggest we take any further discussions elsewhere or just table them.
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=480724
--- Comment #25 from _pjp_ pj.pandit@yahoo.co.in 2009-03-06 12:27:47 EDT --- Hey Mark, hi
I did not say his copyright statement should be retained. I'm just trying to say that when it is removed (as it already has been), his declaration at
http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html
should be referenced explicitly.
It's done, please see the latest files.
No, but it's no excuse to get sloppy and give people the wrong idea, either. I've got my own public domain fork of djbdns and I would very much appreciate it if pjp was very clear that the original material he based his fork on was public domain.
Sure, may be I'll put up a web-page to this effect in couple of days, guess that should be okay.
Thanks.
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=480724
--- Comment #26 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com 2009-03-06 13:49:58 EDT --- (In reply to comment #24)
I didn't ask about a hypothetical binary C. To use your terminology for this thought experiment, do the terms of the GPL apply to file A, if file A and only file A, is obtained from pjp's djbdns-1.05.1.tar.gz, which includes a copy of v3 of the GPL?
Not solely by inclusion of COPYING, no, but upon first change, yes. Even if that change is the inclusion of the GPL license notice in the code's header.
To my knowledge, the last release of djbdns was 8 years ago and he did not issue a new release when he abandoned his copyright.
I stand corrected (on this point).
I did not say his copyright statement should be retained. I'm just trying to say that when it is removed (as it already has been), his declaration at
http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html
should be referenced explicitly.
Indeed, but this is a "should", rather than a "must". It would be polite to do so.
To bring this back on topic, please make sure you've got this patch applied:
http://marc.info/?l=djbdns&m=123613000920446&w=2
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=480724
Rick Moen rick@linuxmafia.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rick@linuxmafia.com
--- Comment #27 from Rick Moen rick@linuxmafia.com 2009-03-06 17:22:15 EDT --- My thanks to Prasad for working on this.
1. Did I miss a trick during software build, or does Prasad's tarball Makefile so far build/install only dnscache, and not the six other binaries? (I've not looked closely; I just did ./configure; make; make install.)
2. From a very quick glance, I think Prasad has not yet applied quite a number of patches often recommended to fix djbdns and bring it up to current standards -- some of those fixing significant security issues. I have a list at http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Network_Other/dns-servers.html#djbdns-patches , and link to Jonathan de Boyne Pollard's and tinydns.org's separate pages.
3. It would be good if you could work with Mark Johnson (zinq-djbdns) and Gerrit Pape (Debian djbdns/dbndns). Although Dan is finally talking about an 1.06 version solely to fix the recent AXFR security problem, it seems highly likely that he'll ignore most other fixes, notably those he is known to dislike (e.g., FHS, GNU make-tools, system headers, manpages, IPv6, default dependency on ucspi-tcp and daemontools). So, a robust upstream elsewhere is crucial.
4. I applaud the measures Prasad is taking and says he'll take to make sure Dan's role remains properly credited and that people can find the non-copylefted upstream source if they want it. I second Mark Johnson in strongly suggesting care to credit other prior contributors, irrespective of obligation.
5. While wishing to avoid licence discussion here, I'll point out that "public domain" dedications have known legal problems albeit Dan's is probably good enough in context. My analysis: http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Licensing_and_Law/public-domain.html Perhaps Red Hat Legal should be consulted, though. (Whether his purporting to do that actually has the intended legal effect is subject to some doubt. Tom, yes, Dan does "understand" the portion of the law that he wants to acknowledge, but he's selective in what he acknowledges, and argues rather illogically with genuine experts like Larry Rosen when they say things he finds convenient.)
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=480724
--- Comment #28 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com 2009-03-06 17:34:40 EDT --- I really do not want this bugzilla ticket to be a forum for folks to draw up sides on legal issues.
Rick, I have a huge amount of respect for you and Larry, but I disagree with your assessment, as does Red Hat Legal. If you'd like to discuss this off-bugzilla, I'd be happy to do so.
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=480724
--- Comment #29 from Rick Moen rick@linuxmafia.com 2009-03-06 17:45:13 EDT --- Thanks for that, Tom. Good idea. And yes, I'd be delighted to hear, by e-mail, your and Red Hat Legal's take on either PD dedications generally, or just on Dan's. (As a practical matter, I do think it very likely, in any event, that judges would implement Dan's approximate intention in some manner, if not the way he intended. And I think it vanishingly likely to ever be litigated, anyway.)
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=480724
--- Comment #30 from Rick Moen rick@linuxmafia.com 2009-03-06 17:46:31 EDT --- (I meant "unlikely", just as I meant "inconvenient" in the earlier post. Sorry; not enough coffee.)
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=480724
Dan Peterson dpiddy@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dpiddy@gmail.com
--- Comment #31 from Dan Peterson dpiddy@gmail.com 2009-03-06 22:58:47 EDT --- Just thought I'd add my feeling that if significant enough changes are being made to warrant a new version number beyond what's officially released as "djbdns" AND you want to apply a license to it you might seriously consider changing the name of your incarnation to something else. Especially since a new release of djbdns from the real djbdns author is forthcoming.
I know it's public domain and pretty much anything goes but I think it would be a nice courtesy. Plus, people who use the "real" djbdns would appreciate the lack of confusion.
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=480724
--- Comment #32 from _pjp_ pj.pandit@yahoo.co.in 2009-03-09 01:48:55 EDT --- Hello there,
(In reply to comment #25)
Sure, may be I'll put up a web-page to this effect in couple of days, guess that should be okay.
Please see: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns
Thank you.
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=480724
--- Comment #33 from _pjp_ pj.pandit@yahoo.co.in 2009-03-09 02:07:16 EDT --- Hello Rick,
First of all thanks a million for your comments, I deeply appreciate it.
(In reply to comment #27)
- Did I miss a trick during software build, or does Prasad's tarball
Makefile so far build/install only dnscache, and not the six other binaries? (I've not looked closely; I just did ./configure; make; make install.)
Well no, you didn't miss any steps. It's just that, so far I've only been able to change dnscacahe. Though the work is in good progress for others, and soon I'll include them as well.
- From a very quick glance, I think Prasad has not yet applied quite a
number of patches often recommended to fix djbdns and bring it up to current standards -- some of those fixing significant security issues. I have a list at http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Network_Other/dns-servers.html#djbdns-patches , and link to Jonathan de Boyne Pollard's and tinydns.org's separate pages.
Thanks Rick! That's the kind of inputs I'm looking for. I'll see to it that all those patches are applied, with due credits to the original authors.
Thanks so much.
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=480724
--- Comment #34 from _pjp_ pj.pandit@yahoo.co.in 2009-03-09 02:14:25 EDT --- (In reply to comment #31)
Just thought I'd add my feeling that if significant enough changes are being made to warrant a new version number beyond what's officially released as "djbdns" AND you want to apply a license to it you might seriously consider changing the name of your incarnation to something else. Especially since a new release of djbdns from the real djbdns author is forthcoming.
Well, yeah I understand the point. But so far I've not changed so much as to warrant a name change.
Thanks.
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=480724
--- Comment #35 from _pjp_ pj.pandit@yahoo.co.in 2009-03-23 05:03:24 EDT --- Hello all,
It's a pleasure to announce the second release of `djbdns' I've been working on. Please have a look
at: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns
And for package review
SPEC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/djbdns.spec SORC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/djbdns-1.05.2.tar.gz SRPM: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/djbdns-1.05.2-1.fc10.src.rpm
Thank you.
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=480724
_pjp_ pj.pandit@yahoo.co.in changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL|http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools |http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdn |/djbdns-1.05.tar.gz |s/djbdns-1.05.3.tar.gz
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=480724
--- Comment #36 from _pjp_ pj.pandit@yahoo.co.in 2009-08-17 06:14:55 EDT --- Hi,
I'm *happy* to announce the new release of djbdns-1.05.3. Please take a look
at: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns
And for package review
SPEC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/djbdns.spec SORC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/djbdns-1.05.3.tar.gz SRPM: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/djbdns-1.05.3-1.fc10.src.rpm
Thank you.
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=480724
--- Comment #37 from Dan Peterson dpiddy@gmail.com 2009-08-17 07:31:09 EDT --- Please change the name. :(
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=480724
Satya Komaragiri skomarag@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |skomarag@redhat.com
--- Comment #38 from Satya Komaragiri skomarag@redhat.com 2009-08-18 10:04:03 EDT --- Unofficial review:
[?] The spec file from spec link does not match spec file provided in srpm ?? [?] Naming guideline: fine, but as you have branched an existing project and changed it lot, it needs to be renamed. [x] Builds successfully http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1611918 [x] License: Checked
[x] rpmlint
bash-4.0$ rpmlint djbdns-1.05.3-1.fc11.i586.rpm djbdns.i586: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/djbdns/tinydns.conf djbdns.i586: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/djbdns/servers/@ djbdns.i586: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/djbdns/dnscache.conf
Two conf files need to have noreplace flag in %files section like %config(noreplace) /etc/your_config_file_here
djbdns.i586: E: zero-length /etc/djbdns/ip/127.0.0.1
[?] Looks like this place will be populated by more empty files for some functionality, but placing all of them in /etc/ does not make sense.
djbdns.i586: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/djbdns/ip/127.0.0.1 djbdns.i586: W: dangerous-command-in-%post ln djbdns.i586: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings.
bash-4.0$ du -sh djbdns-debuginfo-1.05.3-1.fc11.i586.rpm 436K djbdns-debuginfo-1.05.3-1.fc11.i586.rpm
file djbdns-1.05.3-1.fc11.i586/etc/djbdns/servers/@ lists root dns but name '@' should be changed to something meaningful.
The package has too many servers and client side tools. It would make more sense to package them as subpackages so that anyone who say wants to run tinydns does not have to download whole djbdns tools in a single package.
[?]
Use
%preun if [ $1 -eq 0 ] ; then /sbin/chkconfig --del %{name} fi
in preun section
and no need to create sym link. Simply install djbdns in /etc/init.d/ in %install section e.g mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/init.d/ mv $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_bindir}/djbns / $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/init.d/
and include file in %files section
[?] The package does not own all directories e.g /etc/djbdns, /etc/djbdns/ip, /etc/djbdns/servers/ bash-4.0$ rpmls djbdns-1.05.3-1.fc11.i586.rpm -rw-r--r-- /etc/djbdns/dnscache.conf -rw-r--r-- /etc/djbdns/ip/127.0.0.1 -rw-r--r-- /etc/djbdns/servers/@ -rw-r--r-- /etc/djbdns/tinydns.conf
--------------------------------------------------
needs some fix in %files section
List:
[?] rpmlint done check above
[x] Package Naming Guidelines: OKay -But it is better to rename it. [x] Basepackage name matches spec name
[?] License: Fine
Suggestion: Add license block at top in all source files. It seems after re-licensing you have just updated license blocks in files which you have modified. Other files should also get this block.
[x] License file in spec matches actual licenses mentioned in wiki
[?] Does not look like you are using RPM_OPT_FLAGS flags for compilation.
[x] spec file written in American English [x] Legible [x] Builds on ppc, ppc64, i586, x86_64
[?] Does not own all directories
[x]
Extra Suggestions (unless you want this package to be imported into EPEL): 1. You can remove rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT from %install section - Not required any more 2. You can also remove BuildRoot
?: Needs attention x: OKay
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=480724
Pavel Lisý pavel.lisy@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pavel.lisy@gmail.com
--- Comment #39 from Pavel Lisý pavel.lisy@gmail.com 2009-08-18 11:37:39 EDT --- I can help with this one:
The package has too many servers and client side tools. It would make more sense to package them as subpackages so that anyone who say wants to run tinydns does not have to download whole djbdns tools in a single package.
I've made ma own rpm long time ago which is divided to several subpackages. You can inspire from it. It is made for centos but it's useful for fedora too.
this is list: djbdns-axfrdns-1.05-5.el5.i386.rpm djbdns-debuginfo-1.05-5.el5.i386.rpm djbdns-devel-1.05-5.el5.i386.rpm djbdns-dnscache-1.05-5.el5.i386.rpm djbdns-docs-1.05-5.el5.i386.rpm djbdns-man-1.05-5.el5.noarch.rpm djbdns-pickdns-1.05-5.el5.i386.rpm djbdns-rbldns-1.05-5.el5.i386.rpm djbdns-tinydns-1.05-5.el5.i386.rpm djbdns-tools-1.05-5.el5.i386.rpm djbdns-walldns-1.05-5.el5.i386.rpm
Spec file is here:
http://ftp-hk.tmapy.cz/tmapy-twist/centos/5/os/SRPMS/djbdns-1.05-5.el5.src.r...
There are other support packages too (daemontools, ucspi*).
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=480724
--- Comment #40 from _pjp_ pj.pandit@yahoo.co.in 2009-08-19 00:54:47 EDT --- (In reply to comment #39)
I've made ma own rpm long time ago which is divided to several subpackages. You can inspire from it. It is made for centos but it's useful for fedora too.
http://ftp-hk.tmapy.cz/tmapy-twist/centos/5/os/SRPMS/djbdns-1.05-5.el5.src.r...
Thank you so much Pavel; I'll take a look at the srpm and do the necessary.
Thank you.
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=480724
--- Comment #41 from pjp pj.pandit@yahoo.co.in 2009-08-19 08:59:48 EDT --- Hi,
I've made most of the changes indicated in the *brilliant* review above, except for the sub package and name change part. I tried doing that as well, but I think it'll become more complex with so many rpm/subpackages and in turn be less intuitive for users. So it'll be better to install all tools/servers/docs from one rpm. Simple and straight forward.
Please take a look at the latest files:
SPEC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/djbdns.spec SORC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/djbdns-1.05.3.tar.gz SRPM: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/djbdns-1.05.3-2.fc10.src.rpm
Thanks so much.
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=480724
--- Comment #42 from Dan Peterson dpiddy@gmail.com 2009-08-19 09:41:49 EDT --- And why not the name change?
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=480724
Itamar Reis Peixoto itamar@ispbrasil.com.br changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(pj.pandit@yahoo.c | |o.in)
--- Comment #43 from Itamar Reis Peixoto itamar@ispbrasil.com.br 2009-08-20 21:02:37 EDT --- Hi pjp.
you're shipping cbd [1] inside djbdns, I have ported cdb to gnu-autotools and make it as shared library, what you think about linking in it and removing cbd code inside of djbdns ?
1 - http://cr.yp.to/cdb/install.html
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=480724
Itamar Reis Peixoto itamar@ispbrasil.com.br changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |itamar@ispbrasil.com.br Flag| |fedora-review?, | |needinfo?(pj.pandit@yahoo.c | |o.in)
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=480724
pjp pj.pandit@yahoo.co.in changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(pj.pandit@yahoo.c | |o.in), | |needinfo?(pj.pandit@yahoo.c | |o.in) |
--- Comment #44 from pjp pj.pandit@yahoo.co.in 2009-08-21 02:02:52 EDT --- Hey, hello Itamar,
(In reply to comment #43)
you're shipping cbd [1] inside djbdns, I have ported cdb to gnu-autotools and make it as shared library, what you think about linking in it and removing cbd code inside of djbdns?
Sure, that sounds reasonable. Nonetheless as I see, it won't be fast or easy change to do. Plus linking with external library means having a dependency on that package. So if you don't mind, I would like to be sure about few things,
- does your shared library works on all operating systems, both 32/64 bit Linux/*BSD/Solaris etc. and all innumerable dirstributions of each? If not, I suggest *please* aim for that.
- Is it packaged for any distribution? And does it have enough *useful* documentation for each API you provide.
- Are you up for maintaining and supporting the library as long as it is in use? For it should not happen that I remove the code from djbdns source, start using the library and then one day you stop maintaining the library and then I'll be stuck somewhere nowhere.
Besides that I'll need your help to do the actual transition.
Thanks so much.
PS: can I have a look at the library source?
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=480724
--- Comment #45 from Tom Moertel tom@moertel.com 2009-08-22 14:41:29 EDT --- I have inspected the proposed packaging of djbdns and am delighted that somebody has decided to get it into Fedora. To help make the package better, I have a few suggestions.
First, as the package does not use DJB's daemontools to manage the services it provides, it requires initscripts for that purpose. Only one initscript is included in the package, however, and it is named "djbdns", making unclear which of the services it controls (it's dnscache). The initscript for tinydns, for example, is missing. Recommendation: include one initscript per service and make the names of the initscripts match the services they control.
Second, the package is missing some important parts of djbdns -- axfdns, walldns, and rbldns, for example. While these parts are probably used less often than dnscache or tinydns, they are well established within DJB's bundle, and most people will expect them to be included in any package calling itself "djbdns". Recommendation: include the missing pieces.
Third, I must agree with Satya Komaragiri about the need for subpackages. It's very common to need only one part of djbdns for any particular install, either dnscache (for a site needing a local, recursive DNS cache), tinydns (for a site needing a content DNS server to publish its public records), or the tools (for administration and debugging). To place all of these in one package will contribute clutter to the typical install. (This problem wasn't so bad in DJB's bundle because it didn't use initscripts, but we do, and installing 5 initscripts when the typical sysadmin will need only 1 seems excessive.) Recommendation: split the package into logical subpackages, following Pavel Lisý's scheme, which makes a lot of sense from an administrator's point of view (and ought to be immediately understandable to anyone familiar with how to deploy from DJB's bundle).
Fourth, DJB's bundle relied upon the multilog program from daemontools to handle logging, whereas our proposed package writes to log files directly. But multilog did more than just write to files; it also inserted timestamps, which our logs lack. Timestamps are essential in system logs, so we must put them back in somehow. Maybe we could use syslog or bring back multilog. Recommendation: Restore the timestamps in logs.
This package is looking great. I think it's just a few tweaks away from being both a good Fedora package and a faithful representation of everything that made DJB's bundle great. Keep up the good work!
Cheers, Tom
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=480724
--- Comment #46 from pjp pj.pandit@yahoo.co.in 2009-08-25 05:32:44 EDT --- Hello Tom,
First of all thank you so much for your suggestions, I really appreciate it.
(In reply to comment #45)
Recommendation: include one initscript per service and make the names of the initscripts match the services they control.
Okay, I'll do the changes.
Second, the package is missing some important parts of djbdns -- axfdns, walldns, and rbldns, for example. While these parts are probably used less often than dnscache or tinydns, they are well established within DJB's bundle, and most people will expect them to be included in any package calling itself "djbdns". Recommendation: include the missing pieces.
Yes, they are in the queue and will be released in due course.
Recommendation: split the package into logical subpackages, following Pavel Lisý's scheme, which makes a lot of sense from an administrator's point of view (and ought to be immediately understandable to anyone familiar with how to deploy from DJB's bundle).
I understand the point, but when I look at so many rpms/subpackages, it just appears to be confusing to me. Anyway, I'll look at the sub-packaging again and try to do it.
I was confused about, the few client tools like dnsip/dnsq/dnsname etc. and with which server(dnscache/tinydns) should I package them or to make a separate sub package for them.
Fourth, DJB's bundle relied upon the multilog program from daemontools to handle logging, whereas our proposed package writes to log files directly. But multilog did more than just write to files; it also inserted timestamps, which our logs lack. Timestamps are essential in system logs, so we must put them back in somehow. Maybe we could use syslog or bring back multilog. Recommendation: Restore the timestamps in logs.
Yeah, I'm working on the logging part as well, will do the necessary changes.
This package is looking great. I think it's just a few tweaks away from being both a good Fedora package and a faithful representation of everything that made DJB's bundle great. Keep up the good work!
Thanks a lot Tom, I sincerely appreciate it.
Thank you.
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=480724
Bruno Wolff III bruno@wolff.to changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bruno@wolff.to
--- Comment #47 from Bruno Wolff III bruno@wolff.to 2009-08-25 10:45:28 EDT --- Note that axfrdns is really desired if you are using tinydns, as it handles fallback to tcp.
Multilog also handles rotating the logfiles. It also handles a full disk in a way that DJB thought reasonable, though not everyone may want it to work that way.
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=480724
Rakesh Pandit rpandit@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|rpandit@redhat.com |
--- Comment #48 from Rakesh Pandit rpandit@redhat.com 2009-09-14 01:31:15 EDT ---
This ticket is waiting for development from upstream and it would make sense to defer it for time till all changes are done.
This has become an upstream devel mailing list.
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=480724
Rakesh Pandit rpandit@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED CC| |rpandit@redhat.com Resolution| |DEFERRED
--- Comment #49 from Rakesh Pandit rpandit@redhat.com 2009-12-09 05:51:09 EDT --- No comments for long. Waiting for upstream work to complete. Will close it for now.
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=480724
Rakesh Pandit rpandit@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|itamar@ispbrasil.com.br |nobody@fedoraproject.org Flag|fedora-review? |
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=480724
pjp pj.pandit@yahoo.co.in changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|DEFERRED | AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |pj.pandit@yahoo.co.in Keywords| |Reopened
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=480724
--- Comment #50 from pjp pj.pandit@yahoo.co.in 2011-04-11 00:54:33 EDT --- Hi,
After long-long time I could again get back to this one. Please have a look at the latest files for review.
SPEC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/djbdns.spec SORC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/djbdns-1.05.4.tar.gz SRPM: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/djbdns-1.05.4-2.fc14.src.rpm
Thank you.
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=480724
pjp pj.pandit@yahoo.co.in changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL|http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdn |http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdn |s/djbdns-1.05.3.tar.gz |s/ndjbdns-1.05.4.tar.gz Summary|Review Request: djbdns - A |Review Request: ndjbdns - |Domain Name System by D. J. |New djbdns, usable djbdns. |Bernstein |
--- Comment #51 from pjp pj.pandit@yahoo.co.in 2011-07-26 14:21:10 EDT --- Hi,
I've changed the project name to ndjbdns: New djbdns. Also, fixed few packaging errors. Please have a look at
SPEC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/ndjbdns.spec SRPM: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/ndjbdns-1.05.4-3.fc14.src.rpm
Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3232097
Thank you.
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=480724
pjp pj.pandit@yahoo.co.in changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Priority|low |high Severity|medium |high
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=480724
--- Comment #52 from pjp pj.pandit@yahoo.co.in 2012-02-24 11:27:06 EST --- Hi,
Please have a look at these new files which install the systemd(1) service unit files.
SPEC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/ndjbdns.spec SRPM: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/ndjbdns-1.05.4-4.fc16.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3815910
Thank you.
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=480724
pjp pj.pandit@yahoo.co.in changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|pj.pandit@yahoo.co.in |nobody@fedoraproject.org
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=480724
pjp pj.pandit@yahoo.co.in changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEW
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=480724
Rahul Sundaram metherid@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |metherid@gmail.com
--- Comment #53 from Rahul Sundaram metherid@gmail.com 2012-02-27 22:08:38 EST --- No need to specify BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) anymore.
Any reason you are not using %configure macro
Since all current releases of Fedora are using systemd by default, you can drop the sysvinit scripts entirely. Also you need to do BuildRequires: systemd-units
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=480724
--- Comment #54 from pjp pj.pandit@yahoo.co.in 2012-02-28 08:18:53 EST --- Hi, I've made the changes, please see:
SPEC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/ndjbdns.spec SRPM: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/ndjbdns-1.05.4-5.fc16.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3827635
Thanks you!
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=480724
--- Comment #55 from Rahul Sundaram metherid@gmail.com 2012-03-01 10:59:27 EST --- Is this necessary? -- export CFLAGS="$CFLAGS $RPM_OPT_FLAGS" The following is redundant:
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT %clean rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT %defattr(-,root,root,-)
Although not a blocker, I strongly urge you to consider renaming filepaths with the project name. /etc/ndjbdns instead of /etc/djbdns for instance to avoid confusion with the original project.
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=480724
--- Comment #56 from pjp pj.pandit@yahoo.co.in 2012-03-01 15:50:25 EST --- (In reply to comment #55)
Although not a blocker, I strongly urge you to consider renaming filepaths with the project name. /etc/ndjbdns instead of /etc/djbdns for instance to avoid confusion with the original project.
Yep done.
Please see
SPEC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/ndjbdns.spec SRPM: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/ndjbdns-1.05.4-6.fc16.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3844111
Thanks so much!
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=480724
--- Comment #57 from Rahul Sundaram metherid@gmail.com 2012-03-09 13:37:42 EST --- Sorry for the delay. Here is a more detailed review;
You should change the license header to specify the version info that matches the license tag in the spec file
* I've modified this file for good and am releasing this new version under * GNU General Public License. * Copyright (C) 2009 - 2011 Prasad J Pandit
This has to say GNU General Public License version 2 or later. It does say that below so this is a bit redundant. I won't insist on it but I recommend that.
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_unitdir} mv dnscache.service $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_unitdir}/ mv tinydns.service $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_unitdir}/
You should probably do the above in the makefile itself since you are upstream and add a dependency list in the upstream source, say in the README file that specifies that the source depends on systemd. You should remove the reference to service framework in the spec file description
If cdb is nominally considered to be a separate library, static linking requires a exception from the Fedora packaging committee. Otherwise, you need to split that up and package it separately.
ndjbdns.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dnsipq ndjbdns.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tinydnsd ndjbdns.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dnstxt ndjbdns.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dnscached ndjbdns.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tcprules ndjbdns.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary axfrdns-conf ndjbdns.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dnstracesort ndjbdns.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dnstrace ndjbdns.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary randomip ndjbdns.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary axfrdns ndjbdns.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dnsmx ndjbdns.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dnsname ndjbdns.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary axfr-get ndjbdns.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dnsqr
Ideally all binaries need to include man pages. The purpose of these binaries are currently undocumented in the source. Address these concerns and I will approve you. Thanks.
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=480724
--- Comment #58 from pjp pj.pandit@yahoo.co.in 2012-03-10 15:51:35 EST --- (In reply to comment #57)
- I've modified this file for good and am releasing this new version under
- GNU General Public License.
- Copyright (C) 2009 - 2011 Prasad J Pandit
Yep, removed.
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_unitdir} mv dnscache.service $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_unitdir}/ mv tinydns.service $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_unitdir}/ You should probably do the above in the makefile itself
In the Makefile it may not fit, for not all systems have systemd(1) support.
If cdb is nominally considered to be a separate library, static linking requires a exception from the Fedora packaging committee.
cdb is not installed separately. It'll be some work + time to separate it from the main source. I'll urge you to approve the package while I continue work towards linking cdb dynamically.
ndjbdns.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dnsipq ndjbdns.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tinydnsd ndjbdns.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dnstxt ndjbdns.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dnscached ndjbdns.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tcprules ndjbdns.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary axfrdns-conf ndjbdns.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dnstracesort ndjbdns.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dnstrace ndjbdns.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary randomip ndjbdns.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary axfrdns ndjbdns.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dnsmx ndjbdns.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dnsname ndjbdns.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary axfr-get ndjbdns.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dnsqr
I've added all the manuals except for dnstracesort(1). It is a small shell script to sort the output of dnstrace(1) command. I've documented it in the manual of dnstrace(1) command.
Please see:
SPEC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/ndjbdns.spec SRPM: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/ndjbdns-1.05.4-7.fc16.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3878658
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=480724
Rahul Sundaram metherid@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |metherid@gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review?
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=480724
Rahul Sundaram metherid@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #59 from Rahul Sundaram metherid@gmail.com 2012-03-11 03:53:16 EDT --- APPROVED
There are several other code improvements suggested in this review that you should look at but they aren't blockers to getting this in the repository. So I am approving this and recommend that you go through the history of this review and apply patches and changes from branches/forks of djbdns as applicable.
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=480724
--- Comment #60 from pjp pj.pandit@yahoo.co.in 2012-03-11 12:07:03 EDT --- OMG...such a *bliss* to see this approved!
Thank you so much! :)
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=480724
--- Comment #61 from pjp pj.pandit@yahoo.co.in 2012-03-11 12:26:07 EDT --- (In reply to comment #59)
There are several other code improvements suggested in this review that you should look at but they aren't blockers to getting this in the repository. So I am approving this and recommend that you go through the history of this review and apply patches and changes from branches/forks of djbdns as applicable.
Yes, I'll do that.
Once again, thanks a lot! :)
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=480724
pjp pj.pandit@yahoo.co.in changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #62 from pjp pj.pandit@yahoo.co.in 2012-03-11 13:43:28 EDT --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: ndjbdns Short Description: New djbdns. Owners: pjp Branches: f15 f16 el6 InitialCC:
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=480724
--- Comment #63 from Rahul Sundaram metherid@gmail.com 2012-03-11 13:47:28 EDT --- You are welcome. Couple of quick notes before you import:
* List the binaries individually rather than use a wildcard
* If you are creating log files in /var/log by default, you should run logrotate on them. See other spec files for examples. say httpd.spec
* You might want to change the upstream url to ndjbdns as well to avoid any confusion with the original source.
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=480724
--- Comment #64 from pjp pj.pandit@yahoo.co.in 2012-03-12 06:18:32 EDT --- (In reply to comment #63)
You are welcome. Couple of quick notes before you import:
List the binaries individually rather than use a wildcard
If you are creating log files in /var/log by default, you should run
logrotate on them. See other spec files for examples. say httpd.spec
- You might want to change the upstream url to ndjbdns as well to avoid any
confusion with the original source.
Yes, I'll do these before the upcoming release.
Thank you.
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=480724
--- Comment #65 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com 2012-03-12 07:59:07 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
Added f17.
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=480724
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
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=480724
--- Comment #66 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-15 07:45:07 EDT --- ndjbdns-1.05.4-9.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ndjbdns-1.05.4-9.fc16
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=480724
--- Comment #67 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-15 07:45:24 EDT --- ndjbdns-1.05.4-9.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ndjbdns-1.05.4-9.fc17
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=480724
--- Comment #68 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-15 07:45:56 EDT --- ndjbdns-1.05.4-9.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ndjbdns-1.05.4-9.fc15
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=480724
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #69 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-15 22:45:23 EDT --- ndjbdns-1.05.4-9.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.
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=480724
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |ndjbdns-1.05.4-9.fc15 Resolution| |ERRATA Last Closed|2009-12-09 05:51:09 |2012-03-25 23:58:00
--- Comment #70 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-25 23:58:00 EDT --- ndjbdns-1.05.4-9.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.
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=480724
--- Comment #71 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-26 13:53:02 EDT --- ndjbdns-1.05.4-9.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.
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=480724
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|ndjbdns-1.05.4-9.fc15 |ndjbdns-1.05.4-9.fc16
--- Comment #72 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-26 13:57:33 EDT --- ndjbdns-1.05.4-9.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.
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=480724
--- Comment #73 from pjp pj.pandit@yahoo.co.in 2012-03-27 15:41:49 EDT --- Please see:
-> http://pjp.dgplug.org/ndjbdns -> https://pjps.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/new-djbdns
Mission accomplished...YAY!!! :)
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=480724
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|ndjbdns-1.05.4-9.fc16 |ndjbdns-1.05.4-9.fc17
--- Comment #74 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-04-11 23:11:13 EDT --- ndjbdns-1.05.4-9.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org