[Bug 173459] Review Request: initng

[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: initng


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=173459


daner964 at student.liu.se changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Attachment #128141|0                           |1
        is obsolete|                            |




------- Additional Comments From daner964 at student.liu.se  2006-04-26 03:40 EST -------
Created an attachment (id=128240)
 --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=128240&action=view)
initng 0.6.2-1 spec file

(In reply to comment #239)
> * I think, the old vs. recent SELinux API check should be implemented
>   in the upstream package

Since Dragoran's fix (thanks a lot for that one!) didn't make it into 0.6.2
I'll fix this in the spec for 0.6.3 when released.

> * there should be appended a '|| :' to the
> 
>   | /usr/sbin/semanage ...
>   | /sbin/restorecon ...
> 
>   calls in %post and %postun, and perhaps '2>/dev/null' too. 'semanage'
>   is not available for FC4.

Fixed.

> * %postun is buggy; '/sbin/ldconfig' must be moved into the body:

Did I get it right this time? (What was that "-p"?)

>   | rm -rf %{buildroot} _doc
>			  ~~~~

Fixed.

> * the
> 
>   | %post
>   | ...
>   | exit 0
> 
>   is useless;

No idea where that came from. Removed.

> * not really wrong, but the '-r' flag can/should be omitted:

Well, we might save one cpu cycle or two by removing it ;-)

> * when you want a full review, then provide a complete .src.rpm.

I'll do that as soon as someone tells me there will be any point with a full
review. Judging by Ralf's comment about the package being "way off from being
ready for a release", I guess there's no point really yet?

> * how mature is the i-files syntax? When scripts will have to be
>   rewritten for e.g. 0.70, this will stop me from approving it...

I'll pass this question on to upstreams ml. The syntax has changed a lot in the
past, but it seems to have stabilized lately.

>   Resp.: when published now, can you guarantee, that
>   a) package follows upstream releases, and
>   b) a nightly 'smart update' to a new version will not bring the
>      system into an unusable state?

A is no problem, I'll continue to release as I'm doing now (Only problem might
be that I can't reach neither Fedoras build system nor cvs from work because of
a corporate firewall, I'll have to do this from home instead).

About B, I guess this means that I'll have to solve incompabilities that may
arise using scriptlets in the spec file, right?

> * when attaching spec files to the ticket, a 'text/plain' type shall 
>   be assigned instead of 'application/octet-stream'

Oh. I've always used the "auto-detect", I thought it was smart enough...

-- 
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.