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: ganglia - Ganglia Distributed Monitoring System

------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-06-14 00:57 EST -------
(In reply to comment #3)
> W: ganglia-gmetad no-documentation
> There is a manpage for gmetad; any reason not to package it?

Another case of fallout from using the upstream spec. Fixed in latest rev.

> W: ganglia-gmetad dangerous-command-in-%postun userdel
> Generally the user is not deleted when the package is removed; rpm may leave 
> the
> config files around and they would become unowned if you do this.

Pulled that.

> W: ganglia-gmetad incoherent-init-script-name gmetad
> W: ganglia-gmond incoherent-init-script-name gmond
> Generally it's best to try and keep the init files named after the package, 
> but
> these are reasonably named and I don't think this is a blocker.


> W: ganglia-web no-documentation
> There does seem to be some documentation but it's in /usr/share/ganglia.  Any
> reason why AUTHORS, COPYING and Changelog aren't %doc?

More taking for granted that upstream did things right. Fixed.

> Other oddities I noticed:
> /usr/share/ganglia/
> /usr/share/ganglia/
> Why package these?

Removed from latest version.

> What is /usr/lib64/ for?  It's odd to see a versioned
> shared library in a -devel package, and nothing seems to link against it.  If
> anything did, it would end up pulling in this -devel package, which would be
> odd.  Still, it doesn't make much sense to split two files out of a five-file
> -devel package.

I honestly don't know what the lib is for... Certainly could make a ganglia-libs
package, though yeah, that's two really small packages that are largely
inconsequential. I'm open to whatever on these.

> Why not package the gmetric, gmond and gstat manpages in ganglia-gmond?

Done. As well as packaging the gmetad manpage in ganglia-gmetad.

Check out the -7 release...

Configure bugmail:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

Fedora-package-review mailing list

Reply via email to