[Bug 453109] Review Request: NPusers - Adds NOCpulse production users

[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: NPusers - Adds NOCpulse production users


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453109





------- Additional Comments From msuchy at redhat.com  2008-06-30 08:28 EST -------
Lubo, 
I appreciate you comments, just to put you in context. NOCpulse is very old code
and I already do a lot of cleaning of it (but I know it is not excuse for not
clean it further). 
And although I'm going in incorporate some of your comment I have to disagree on
and explain this points:

1) This is not completely pointless. We (RHN Satellite team) put version to
separate file (for every package) so we can easily bump up it using our own
build scripts. This way we can avoid of situation when somebody forget it to
bump up and we end up with two package with same NEVR but different content. If
you are aware of better handling of this I'd thankfully if you share this with me.

3) Ops, correct. I forgot to put this lines to spec:
Source2: sources
%define main_source %(awk '{ print $2 ; exit}' %{SOURCE2})
Source0: %{main_source}
Which again seems pointless. But it is not. We often build development versions
of rpm (because we are upstream) and the .tar.gz is named as
%(name)-<SHA1ofTree>.tar.gz and only release packages have name
%(name)-%(version)-tar.gz
I'm unwilling to change it because of [1].

6) nocpulse runs on various arch, so I either keep it there or make spec for
each arch. I'm unwilling to change it because of [1].

[1] Making changes to code (or anything in tar.gz) is easily done using patches,
src.rpm, rpm and fedora do not have tools how to track changes to spec file. And
because we are upstream we either change this spec and then we have to change
our team processes or we leave it in spec file.

And about comment #2, NB:
This package originaly hold more then what is currently inside and in future can
containt more or less. Yes, it is possible to intergrated it itno single
packages, but 
a) historicaly it was separate packages, so it probably should stay separate
b) some packages may need only users, but not config files, so it should stay
separate.
c) fact, that both packages are small is no reason for integration. IMO.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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.