[Bug 196101] Review Request: mimedefang
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: mimedefang https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=196101 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Version|devel |rawhide -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196101] Review Request: mimedefang
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: mimedefang https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196101 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Component|Package Review |915resolution --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-16 06:32 EST --- Well, I think removing the versionified requirement to perl(Digest::SHA1) would be the best as the first official perl-Digest-SHA1 package ever build for a Red Hat Linux system was 2.00 and it was build in 2002 when 2.00 appeared in 1998. Same applies to my own versionified requirement to perl(MIME::Tools), which is originally taken from the README file, but I absolutely can't see any problem when running it using perl(MIME::Tools) 5.410 which seems to be required as the minimum requirement by the code, too. Removing these two added-by-hand requirements fits to me, is this acceptable? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196101] Review Request: mimedefang
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: mimedefang https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196101 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Component|915resolution |Package Review OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-16 09:46 EST --- Sure, that's the simplest thing to do. Since that's the only issue and the fix is trivial, I'll go ahead and approve and you can just take them out before you check in. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196101] Review Request: mimedefang
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: mimedefang https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196101 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-16 14:16 EST --- 17722 (mimedefang): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded. 17723 (mimedefang): Build on target fedora-5-extras succeeded. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196101] Review Request: mimedefang
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: mimedefang https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196101 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-15 23:59 EST --- Unfortuantely I have no way to test this; I long ago dumped Sendmail for Exim. But I'll go ahead and review the form of the package and work from the assumption that you've done the necessary testing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196101] Review Request: mimedefang
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: mimedefang https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196101 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-16 00:28 EST --- There seems to be something resembling tests in the tests directory, but I don't see how you would actually run them. I think you actually have to set up the system with the test filter and then send the test messages through it, which wouldn't be doable in an rpm. It looks like RPM's automatic Perl dependency generation gets confused and comes up with duplicated dependencies for perl(Digest::SHA1) and perl(MIME::Tools) with different versioning requirements. Unfortunately these will need to be filtered. Review: * source files match upstream: e55b22dda54c4a3b52e1fbeb9135b0cf mimedefang-2.57.tar.gz * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint has only ignorable errors. X final provides and requires are sane: config(mimedefang) = 2.57-3.fc6 mimedefang = 2.57-3.fc6 = /bin/bash /bin/sh /sbin/chkconfig /sbin/service /usr/bin/perl /usr/sbin/useradd config(mimedefang) = 2.57-3.fc6 libperl.so()(64bit) perl = 0:5.001 X perl(Digest::SHA1) perl(Digest::SHA1) = 2.00 perl(Getopt::Std) perl(IO::Handle) perl(IO::Select) perl(IO::Socket) perl(IO::Stringy) = 1.212 perl(MIME::Base64) = 3.03 perl(MIME::Parser) X perl(MIME::Tools) = 5.410 perl(MIME::Tools) = 5.413 perl(MIME::Words) perl(Mail::SpamAssassin) = 1.6 perl(POSIX) perl(Socket) perl(Sys::Hostname) perl(Sys::Syslog) perl(Time::Local) perl(lib) perl(strict) perl(vars) perl(warnings) perl-MailTools = 1.15 sendmail-cf = 8.12.0 * %check is not present; running test suite not feasible within rpmbuild. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets are OK (adding a service and controlling the daemon) * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196101] Review Request: mimedefang
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: mimedefang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196101
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-10 06:55 EST ---
Jason, could you please add --with-milterlib=%{_libdir} to %configure for
testing whether it resolves the problem and building of mimedefang works?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- 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
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196101] Review Request: mimedefang
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: mimedefang https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196101 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-21 07:13 EST --- (In reply to comment #0) Unfortunately rpmlint isn't quiet on x86_32: E: mimedefang non-standard-uid /var/log/mimedefang defang E: mimedefang non-standard-gid /var/log/mimedefang defang E: mimedefang non-standard-dir-perm /var/log/mimedefang 0750 E: mimedefang non-standard-uid /var/spool/MD-Quarantine defang E: mimedefang non-standard-gid /var/spool/MD-Quarantine defang E: mimedefang non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/MD-Quarantine 0750 E: mimedefang non-standard-uid /var/spool/MIMEDefang defang E: mimedefang non-standard-gid /var/spool/MIMEDefang defang E: mimedefang non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/MIMEDefang 0750 W: mimedefang service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/mimedefang W: mimedefang incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/mimedefang $prog IMHO all lines marked with error can't be really avoided, the first warning line should be correct...when installing MIMEDefang, it should be enabled, too. Last warning line seems to be caused by some rpmlint confusion ;-) I would agree with you on all of these apart from the service-default-enabled one. The system admin should be the one to enable a service if they want it, and sendmail needs to be reconfigured manually to talk to it anyway. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196101] Review Request: mimedefang
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: mimedefang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196101
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-21 09:06 EST ---
Accepted and changed, but 'chkconfig --add %{name}' has to be executed only at
installing then. Otherwise it will disabled per default during each upgrade...
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- 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
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196101] Review Request: mimedefang
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: mimedefang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196101
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-21 09:27 EST ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Accepted and changed, but 'chkconfig --add %{name}' has to be executed only
at
installing then. Otherwise it will disabled per default during each upgrade...
Running chkconfig --add at upgrade time doesn't result in default-disabled
initscripts getting disabled; at least it doesn't for spamass-milter and
milter-regex, which I maintain. Try it and see...
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- 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
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196101] Review Request: mimedefang
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: mimedefang https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196101 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-21 09:39 EST --- Oh okay...didn't know that, yet. Further comments regarding MIMEDefang? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196101] Review Request: mimedefang
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: mimedefang https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196101 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-21 09:52 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) Oh okay...didn't know that, yet. Further comments regarding MIMEDefang? I'm happy to review this but it'll take some time and I'm rather busy at the moment, so I left this review request in NEW state so someone else might step in and review it earlier. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
