[Bug 213832] Review Request: arpwatch - Network monitoring tools for tracking IP addresses on a network

[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: arpwatch - Network monitoring tools for tracking IP addresses on a network


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213832





------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr  2006-11-09 14:20 EST -------
(In reply to comment #10)


> The snmpwalk non-requirement looks to me like a non issue because user running
> the arpfetch command will get a message snmpwalk not found if it is not there.

That's what I call broken. A user running a script installed in the default
PATH by a package should not get any error. Or it should be documented 
prominently.

> And I wouldn't say that the script is non functional, it just requires
> installation of another package. This is really only issue of aesthetics and I'd
> like to leave that on Miroslav to decide.

It's not aesthetic, it's poor packaging. Packaged software should work 
out of the box, or have things that won't work out of the box 
documented.

> The release number should be probably just a single number (+ disttag) for FC
devel.

If it is a pre-release it should be named according to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-d97a3f40b6dd9d2288206ac9bd8f1bf9b791b22a

If it is a post release version, it is right as is, as seen here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-18aa467fc6925455e44be682fd336667a17e8933

> The scripts aren't one-to-one copy of the scriptlets from guidelines but I don't
> think it is mandatory to have one-to-one copy if they work the same.

I agree on the principle, but I'd like to have some explanations.
Is it true that they work the same? Is it sure that the exit 0 is enough
to avoid any failure? Some snippets on the wiki page have ||:, is it 
unusefull?

> As the things above are only minor nits and comments and the package is OK
> otherwise I think I can call it ACCEPTED.

One of my questions hasn't been answered. It is certainly not a blocker,
but I think it also deserves an explanation (it may even be that it is
the other possibility, ie doing useradd only for the first install which
is wrong):

* why isn't the useradd only done for the first install?


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.