[Bug 181450] Review Request: clamav-exim - Clam AV support files for Exim

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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: clamav-exim - Clam AV support files for Exim


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181450





------- Additional Comments From orion at cora.nwra.com  2006-02-15 17:23 EST -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> Thanks very much for the review.  I should have mentioned that I knew rpmlint
> barfed lots, mostly due to this being a very weird package.

Yeah, we'll have to muddle through... :-)

> > W: clamav-exim no-documentation
> 
> There are no docs, though maybe I should write a short README.

I think that would be good - explicitly stating the license as well as a copy of
the GPL.
 
> > E: clamav-exim incoherent-logrotate-file /etc/logrotate.d/clamd.exim
> 
> Is this the filename (i.e. clamd.exim) that it's complaining about? If so, I
> know it's not the same as the package but the convention wasn't invented by me
> but does make sense.

I think you need to use clamd-exim here and elsewhere (init.d).  "." usually
implies a meaningful suffix.

> > E: clamav-exim non-standard-uid /var/run/clamd.exim clamexim
> > E: clamav-exim non-standard-gid /var/run/clamd.exim exim
> > E: clamav-exim non-standard-dir-perm /var/run/clamd.exim 0750
> > E: clamav-exim non-standard-gid /var/log/clamd.exim exim
> 
> I don't really understand these; the uid/gid/perms are intended and correct.
> 

Yeah, looks like this is what clamav does.

> > E: clamav-exim non-root-group-log-file /var/log/clamd.exim exim
> 
> So, clamexim.root then? Howveer, users in the "exim" group might conceivably
> want read-access to the logs.
 
Well, others seem to do this too, and seems sensible.

> > W: clamav-exim dangerous-command-in-%post chmod
> > ^ If you really need a log file, perhaps create in %install?
> 
> I could do. However, this stuff all came from the original spec fragments that
> were checked into the clamav package by David Woodhouse (dwmw2 at redhat). Given
> that David is more experienced than me I was deferring to his judgement. Any
> other thoughts from others would be welcome.

Okay, looks like this is what clamav spec does too.
 
> > E: clamav-exim init-script-name-with-dot /etc/rc.d/init.d/clamd.exim
> 
> See above discussion about the clamd.exim convention.

Yeah, should be clamd-exim  

> > E: clamav-exim no-status-entry /etc/rc.d/init.d/clamd.exim
> > W: clamav-exim no-reload-entry /etc/rc.d/init.d/clamd.exim
> > E: clamav-exim subsys-not-used /etc/rc.d/init.d/clamd.exim
> 
> These are all bogus considering that the init script is essentially just a
> pointer to the main clamav one.
> 
> > W: clamav-exim incoherent-init-script-name clamd.exim
> 
> See above discusion about the clamd.exim convention.
> 
> > license (GPL) OK, need text in %doc.
> 
> Well, there is no text "upstream" (because there isn't an upstream) so this
> isn't essential.
> 
> > No upstream, is this okay?
> 
> Well, there's no upstream to have, this package is really not much more than
> metadata for packaging consistency

I'll ask some questions on the list.

-- 
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.