Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=576839

--- Comment #7 from Mattias Ellert <[email protected]> 2010-05-23 
13:11:44 EDT ---
Sorry for the delay...

New version:

Spec URL: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/bdii.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/bdii-5.1.5-1.fc12.src.rpm

(In reply to comment #5)
> Thanks for the selinux stuff.
> 
> [r...@f13 ~]# /etc/init.d/bdii start
> Starting SLAPD:                                            [  OK  ]
> Starting update process:                                   [  OK  ]
> [r...@f13 ~]# /etc/init.d/bdii status
> BDII Runnning                                              [  OK  ]
> [r...@f13 ~]# /etc/init.d/bdii stop
> Stopping update process:                                   [  OK  ]
> Stopping SLAPD:                                            [  OK  ]
> 
> is a bit inconsistent, the status does not report the update process
> and all messages should probably include bdii in them. e.g
> 
> Starting BDII slapd
> Starting BDII update process.

[r...@ellert ~]# service bdii start
Starting BDII slapd:                                       [     OK     ]
Starting BDII update process:                              [     OK     ]
[r...@ellert ~]# service bdii start
Starting BDII: BDII already started
[r...@ellert ~]# service bdii status
BDII Runnning                                              [     OK     ]
[r...@ellert ~]# service bdii stop
Stopping BDII update process:                              [     OK     ]
Stopping BDII slapd:                                       [     OK     ]
[r...@ellert ~]# service bdii stop
Stopping BDII: BDII already stopped
[r...@ellert ~]# service bdii status
BDII Stopped                                               [     OK     ]

The logic of the status function is that both processes must be running to
report "BDII Runnning", and both must be stopped to report "BDII Stopped".

> Certainly on my box I can uninstall sudo, should it be a requires?

sudo added as Requires, Requires(preun) and Requries(postun)

I have also patch the initscript so that it does not use the lsb-initscript
functions due to the recent discussion on fedora-devel.

-- 
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.
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
[email protected]
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

Reply via email to