https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
--- Comment #19 from Ralf Corsepius <rc040...@freenet.de> ---
(In reply to Jason Tibbitts from comment #17)
> Anyway, regarding this package, most of the review work is actually done.
> The package is extremely clean for its complexity, though given currently
> supported Fedora versions, I would probably strip some of the version
> conditionals. I guess, though, there's always a chance that someone will
> try to build on RHEL4 or something and the conditionals could make it
> obvious that it won't work.
Well, chances to build the package on any RHEL releases are quite low, because
due to the amount of deps on fairly new versions of perl-modules, chances are
high to trip over a perl-module whose version is stuck at a particular version
in RHEL, thanks to the Core <-> Extra split.
In its current shape the packages should be applicable to Fedora 20, 21 and
rawhide, with chances to make them functional on EPEL7 being high.
> The only other thing I think I'd point out is the use of __rm is kind of
> odd, since you don't use any other macro-ized executables besides __perl.
> Why not just use rm? Or is this something related to the usrmove thing?
I don't recall the details - Could be historical cruft ;)
But I guess the primary reason is me considering non-absolute paths in
scriptlets to be unsafe and unreliabile (I don't know if this consideration is
still valid).
(In reply to Jason Tibbitts from comment #18)
> rpmlint complains about a few macros in comments.
Which version of the package are you looking into?
> # Install upgrade/ into %%{_datadir}/%{name}/upgrade
>
> (these are on lines 395, 465 and 466).
OK, you seem to be looking at the 4.0.x version.
> You place one file in /etc/httpd/conf.d, but the package has no dependency
> on httpd.
httpd is indirectly being pulled in, via some perl/apache-module/plugin.
> Not sure what to do here; I guess I'd suggest owning /etc/httpd
> and /etc/httpd/conf.d if indeed the package is capable of functioning
> without a web server.
In its current configuration, the package requires httpd (More precisely:
apache).
> (The included standalone_httpd command would suggest
> that's the case.) Or, I suppose, split that file into a separate apache
> subpackage that also depends on apache.
Never tried this, not sure it this is feasible ;)
> I guess that seems like a mess, but
> the rt-mailgate package is pretty small as well.
rt-mailgate is a bit special. It was split out from the main-package on public
demand many years ago, because it can be run on a different machine than rt
itself and people actually were using this.
I'll update package and keep you posted.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
