[Bug 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 [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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-27 16:32 EST --- OK, finally some time. I note that you emit a message in %post; you generally shouldn't do this. (There's a good chance that the packaging committee will add a guideline banning this sort of output soon.) I set up a test machine with a minimal OS install, installed this package and started httpd. Everything works fine, so that's good. Still, I wonder if we couldn't have this package spit out a subpackage that pulls in all of the optional dependencies (save php-mysql and php-pgsql, leaving the admin to choose). This would make it even easier for an admin to get up and running. The stuff in comment 45 might be useful as well, although we should carefully consider whether increasing the limits like that is safe. Perhaps you could include the lines but comment them out and include some useful info, like how high you need to increase the limits to handle attachments of a certain size (assuming it's possible to calculate that). Now, let's deal with the rpmlint output. I'll put any issues worth considering at the front. Only two things I consider blockers: E: horde script-without-shebang /usr/share/horde/lib/Net/IMSP/Auth/imtest.php This could be an issue; this is executable, but it has no shebang line and thus won't do anything useful if executed. Perhaps it shouldn't be executable? W: horde symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/horde/config /etc/horde This is valid; the symlink should be relative to avoid breaking various odd setups like chroots. W: horde strange-permission registry.php 0640 W: horde mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 143, tab: line 1) These are not a big deal; clean them up if you like. I think checking into CVS will fix the first one, as it's only complaining about the permissions of the file in the SRPM. E: horde htaccess-file /usr/share/horde/lib/.htaccess E: horde htaccess-file /usr/share/horde/locale/.htaccess E: horde htaccess-file /usr/share/horde/po/.htaccess E: horde htaccess-file /usr/share/horde/scripts/.htaccess E: horde htaccess-file /usr/share/horde/templates/.htaccess Yes, indeed, these are htaccess files, and they need to be there. E: horde non-executable-script /usr/share/horde/scripts/temp-cleanup.cron 0644 Not a big deal, although it does open the question of whether we should consider running that. I've never done so on any of my systems. E: horde non-readable /etc/horde/conf.php 0660 E: horde non-readable /etc/horde/conf.php.dist 0640 E: horde non-readable /etc/horde/conf.xml 0660 E: horde non-readable /etc/horde/mime_drivers.php 0660 E: horde non-readable /etc/horde/mime_drivers.php.dist 0640 E: horde non-readable /etc/horde/motd.php 0660 E: horde non-readable /etc/horde/motd.php.dist 0640 E: horde non-readable /etc/horde/nls.php 0660 E: horde non-readable /etc/horde/nls.php.dist 0640 E: horde non-readable /etc/horde/prefs.php 0660 E: horde non-readable /etc/horde/prefs.php.dist 0640 E: horde non-readable /etc/horde/registry.php 0660 E: horde non-readable /etc/horde/registry.php.dist 0640 Yes, and they need to be non-readable. E: horde non-standard-dir-perm /etc/horde 0770 Again, this is necessary. E: horde non-standard-gid /etc/horde apache E: horde non-standard-gid /etc/horde/conf.php apache E: horde non-standard-gid /etc/horde/conf.php.dist apache E: horde non-standard-gid /etc/horde/conf.xml apache E: horde non-standard-gid /etc/horde/mime_drivers.php apache E: horde non-standard-gid /etc/horde/mime_drivers.php.dist apache E: horde non-standard-gid /etc/horde/motd.php apache E: horde non-standard-gid /etc/horde/motd.php.dist apache E: horde non-standard-gid /etc/horde/nls.php apache E: horde non-standard-gid /etc/horde/nls.php.dist apache E: horde non-standard-gid /etc/horde/prefs.php apache E: horde non-standard-gid /etc/horde/prefs.php.dist apache E: horde non-standard-gid /etc/horde/registry.php apache E: horde non-standard-gid /etc/horde/registry.php.dist apache E: horde non-standard-uid /etc/horde apache E: horde non-standard-uid /etc/horde/conf.php apache E: horde non-standard-uid /etc/horde/conf.php.dist apache E: horde non-standard-uid /etc/horde/conf.xml apache E: horde non-standard-uid /etc/horde/mime_drivers.php apache E: horde non-standard-uid /etc/horde/mime_drivers.php.dist apache E: horde non-standard-uid /etc/horde/motd.php apache E: horde non-standard-uid /etc/horde/motd.php.dist apache E: horde non-standard-uid /etc/horde/nls.php apache E: horde non-standard-uid /etc/horde/nls.php.dist apache E: horde non-standard-uid /etc/horde/prefs.php apache E: horde non-standard-uid /etc/horde/prefs.php.dist apache E: horde non-standard-uid /etc/horde/registry.php apache E: horde
[Bug 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-27 17:38 EST --- Spec URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/horde.spec SRPM URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/horde-3.1.3-10.src.rpm * Wed Dec 27 2006 Brandon Holbrook fedora at theholbrooks.org 3.1.3-10 - Remove execute permission from all php scripts under horde/lib/ - Make /usr/share/horde/config/ symlink relative - Don't echo anything in %%post Thanks, Jason. I've addressed your blockers in this next RPM. All the php files under horde/lib/ are just class definitions and aren't supposed to be executed. upstream must have let that slip by. I put a find section in prep to clear these bits. I also made the config symlink relative. WRT output in %post, I've been keeping my eye on the thread in the list with interest, knowing that I output in this package. The only issue I have is that this (and some of my other) packages don't work out of the box, but first require per-site configuration. Coupled with this is the fact that /usr/share/doc is almost unheard of outside of our die-hard linux users circle, and even less so that some packages create a README.Fedora file targeted specifically at users for post-install instructions. We need to find a way to better educate our userbase about /usr/share/doc and README.Fedora files. -- 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-27 20:50 EST --- OK, the issues I had are fixed; the symlink is relative, the errant executable permissions are fixed and %post is slient. I agree with you that we need a better way of notifying administrators about things like additional necessary configuration work, but I doubt my suggestion for a simple script to notify the admin in a configurable fashion will get much traction and I doubt anyone would actually see anything sent to syslog. One think you might do is mention README.fedora in your %description. I did ask around about the feasibility of having a subpackage which pulls in the optional dependency and the concensus seems to be that it's not a bad idea. It would be trivial to add and would save the admin some typing. In any case, though, this review is finally done. 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 00:03 EST --- * I went ahead and created a horde-enhanced subpackage as 3.1.3-11 before I imported it that pulls in all the suggested packages * devel build succeeded (logs at http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-development-extras/24665-horde-3.1.3-11.fc7/) * FC-6 branch requested -- 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||220796 nThis|| -- 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-24 03:39 EST --- Here's a few more lines you could add to the directory section if you want to make sure the all the test.php tests pass, even with a more restrictive php configuration (Not crucial stuff, don't let this interfere with your review): php_admin_flag magic_quotes_runtimeoff php_flagsession.use_trans_sid off php_flagsession.auto_start off php_admin_flag file_uploadson # Optional - required for weather block in Horde to function #php_admin_flag allow_url_fopen on # Set to your preference - memory_limit, should be at least 32M # and be greater than the value set for post_max_size php_value memory_limit 32M php_value post_max_size 20M php_value upload_max_filesize 10M -- 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-22 16:03 EST --- I urge caution in trying to add symbols that might satisfy whatever CentOS is doing; this package won't cleanly replace that one since it puts the config files under /usr/share/horde. We're very nearly done here; I just need to run through my checklist and double-check everything. Unfortunately holiday issues keep intruding; I really hope to have it done today. Regarding how the various consumers of the Horde infrastructure store their files, I think it's rather expected that, say, IMP files show up under the Horde directory and changing that would break various user expectations. -- 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-22 16:48 EST --- Don't push yourself; it's Christmas! I'll be in and out until Tuesday anyway, so no need to rush. -- 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 12:30 EST --- Spec URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/horde.spec SRPM URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/horde-3.1.3-8.src.rpm Thanks for the dialog guys, this is going to be one solid package by the time it gets approved :D Greg is right about registry.php, that's the one file I had to edit in order to relocate the config files to an arbitrary location. Whether they reside in /etc/horde or /var/lib/horde is a very trivial change and completely up to you.. I'm also not sure which is more appropriate. I've also added some additional Apache security params per Greg's suggestion in comment 27, which also addresses your question about test.php: it's now only accessible from localhost. I did NOT include horde's recommended expose_php off or display_errors off because they seem a little TOO paranoid at the application-level, and more appropriate for the sysadmin to set globally if he desires. Finally, I've added a LOT more to README.fedora, including being more specific about the security implications of opening horde to the world and a whole paragraph of additional recommended actions (pear modules and such) Incidentally, horde flips out if you access it at http://localhost/horde/ and logs: Session cookies will not work without a FQDN and with a non-empty cookie domain. It causes my FF to reload infinitely until it freezes and has to be 'kill -9'ed. Using http://localhost.localdomain/horde/ or http://127.0.0.1/horde/ has no problems. Should we mention this in the README? -- 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 12:39 EST --- Now that I'm starting to think about packaging horde applications, what is the appropriate naming convention, horde-imp or just imp? If we go with horde-imp (which seems the logical choice to me), should we try to Provides: imp for people who try: yum install imp or should we expect them to know imp is a subpackage of the horde framework? -- 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 13:06 EST --- I would just call it imp. IMP is a web application that happens to require the Horde framework, but I wouldn't call it a subpackage of Horde. About the registry.php file, one thing I noticed when diffing against registry.php.dist is that the original file has moved on a bit, and thus there are many differences between the file you ship and the one in the source. Would you consider rebasing it? I still can't decide about the configuration files, but I've found myself doing plenty of manual edits to those files lately so I'm leaning towards /etc being more appropriate. After all, they're still config files, not random internal state. I do think it would be a good idea to mention your localhost issue in the readme; it certainly can't hurt. I'm in the FESCo meeting at the moment, so I'll take a more complete look at this a bit later. -- 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 16:31 EST --- Spec URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/horde.spec SRPM URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/horde-3.1.3-9.src.rpm I've gone ahead and rebased registry.php to 1.255.2.17 (the version that ships with 3.1.3), but there were only 2 differences (lines 53 and 55) when calculating $webroot. All the other diff entries you saw involving $fileroot are intentional and required. By default, registry.php assumes that it is living in $webroot/config/, so it assigns fileroot to be './../appname' which normally resolves to $webroot/appname/ and the world keeps on turning. However, since our registry.php lives in /etc/horde/, './../appname' resolves to '/etc/appname' which doesn't exist let alone contain web content, so horde dies. To fix this issue, I created the $fileroot variable that statically contains '/usr/share/horde', and then manually tweak all the application-specific sections to reference $fileroot instead of __FILE__. Since I agree it's not very clear this is intentional, I've renamed $fileroot to a constant: FEDORA_FILEROOT, to make it obvious this is an intentional distro-specific tweak. I also added a bit about localhost in the README -- 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 19:39 EST ---
I would just call it imp.
I hesitate to agree that is the best choice for the long run, although I
wouldn't object if you named it imp-h3, like the upstream tarball, and
CentOS... If 'imp' ends up being the choice, out of courteosy could you add...
# Obsolete latest version in CentOS Extras
Obsoletes: imp-h3 = 4.1.3-1.c4
Provides: imp-h3 = %{version}
...to your spec file. Especially once Enterprise Extras gets going that would
be appreciated, as I'm sure they won't maintain their own version then.
(The CentOS imp-h3 rpm obsoletes 'imp' without a version number...oops. I will
raise that as a bug in their tracker if the Fedora Extras rpm will be
named 'imp'.)
--
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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||220577 nThis|| -- 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-22 01:36 EST --- imp-h3 makes no sense for a distro-level package, other than blindly naming it the same as upstream's tarball. 'h3' is merely to designate this branch of imp development is designed to run on horde 3.x instead of 2.x so users don't mess up their dependencies. Since we are distro packagers in this case, we have built-in mechanisms to ensure version dependencies, and don't need to use the package name to further 'enforce' this idea. For now (fedora rawhide) I'll make no mention of imp-h3... we can cross the Obsoletes: bridge if/when imp branches for EPEL. I just opened bug 220577 review for imp, further discussions about imp can take place over there. I started with centos's RPM and heavily updated it to reflect the progress we've made in here so far. Jason, one last imp-related question that does pertain to this package. How far are we interested in isolating these various applications from horde (wrt file paths and URL paths)? By default horde applications plant themselves beneath the horde/ directory, which is also reflected in the URL. Imp, for instance, is found at http://site.com/horde/imp/. My imp RPM reflects this by putting config files in /etc/horde/imp and web files in /usr/share/horde/imp/. How all this pertains to this package is the registry.php file needs to know these relative relationships for everything to work. If we'd like to move these applications to /etc/imp and /usr/share/imp, we need to reflect that in registry.php before this gets approved to avoid having to parse-and-edit with each application later. -- 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-20 17:38 EST --- What's the registry.php file for? Compare it to registry.php.dist. It looks to be modified as horde expects the /horde directory to be '..' relative to the config directory, but that won't work obviously if the config directory is in /etc/horde or /var/lib/horde. eg: 'fileroot' = dirname(__FILE__) . '/..', 'templates' = dirname(__FILE__) . '/../templates', is changed to: 'fileroot' = $fileroot, 'templates' = $fileroot . '/templates', and he's added: $fileroot = '/usr/share/horde'; -- 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-20 02:00 EST ---
Well, I had set aside time to look at this and then promptly got busy with
holiday preparations. But I'm off tomorrow, and so I went ahead and build this
and did some preliminary investigations. Here are a few questions:
What's the registry.php file for?
I see the configuration is in /etc/horde, but that you originally had them in
/var/lib/horde. I'm wondering how selinux might ever be made to tolerate apache
writing to things under /etc. Frankly I had anticipated them under /var/lib
because I'd expect that most users would edit them only via the configuration
interface, but I'm honestly not sure which location is more appropriate.
Some packages I've seen disable the test.php script. I'm not sure why; it's
pretty useful for an administrator to check things out, but I suppose it's not
needed in normal use. What do you think?
You should probably add a note to README.fedora about how to install the proper
database module, just to be kind.
Why do you explicitly list out the files/directories under %{_datadir}/%{name}?
In general I really like the look of this package.
--
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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-15 10:45 EST --- No problem, just my opinions and you both are free to ignore them. Thanks for putting this package up for review, and I do appreciate your efforts, and Jason's effort to do the review. Sorry one more comment ;-) - Something like your first paragraph in Comment 33 would be a great addition to the readme file as a warning to users to maybe only widen access at first to their local network or single remote IP. -- 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-14 14:01 EST --- Should you be restarting httpd in post and postun? I can't find a guideline on that on the Fedora wiki, but for example the moin rpm in Extras doesn't. Also http://wiki.horde.org/SecurityTips has a good example of apache configuration. I think some improvements can be made with the addition of the two sections: # Deny access to files that are not served directly by the webserver # Deny access to the test.php files except from localhost -- 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-14 15:06 EST --- for example the moin rpm in Extras doesn't. Sorry, that was a dumb example as it doesn't put anything in conf.d. phpMyAdmin is a better example and it does do condrestart so I guess that's right for Fedora Extras (although not my preference). -- 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-14 15:35 EST --- While I agree that a full restart is unnecessary, at least HUPing apache is required in order for it to read the new conf entries (Aliases, VirtualHosts, whatever the case may be). Since we only want to signal httpd if it's already running, but can't guarantee it's running on every end user's box, we have to use condrestart. An ideal solution would be a 'condreload' command in apache's init script. Would the benefits of reload vs. restart warrant filing an RFE against httpd in Core? What other concerns would need to be considered? -- 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-14 15:41 EST --- Perhaps service httpd status |grep running service httpd graceful? -- 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-14 16:15 EST ---
at least HUPing apache is required in order for it to read the new conf
entries
Yes, but people are going to manually edit that to remove the 127.0.0.1 line
and switch the deny/allow, etc, so really it only needs to be done after you
edit that file, not on every minor update from 3.1.3 to 3.1.4, etc (that file
is marked noreplace).
How about just changeing the README.fedora bit to say:
By default, Horde is only accessible from localhost. To enable wider access,
edit:
/etc/httpd/conf.d/%{name}.conf and then issue the command 'service httpd
grafeful'
--
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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-14 16:30 EST ---
or better:
By default, Horde is only configured to be accessible only from localhost. It
is unlikely that this is sufficient. To enable wider access and apply the
configuration, edit /etc/httpd/conf.d/%{name}.conf and then issue the
command 'service httpd grafeful'
--
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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-14 23:24 EST --- Yes thanks Greg but if you read that paragraph in context we don't WANT them to enable wider access until after they've been to the horde configuration web site and set up their own Authentication backend. Since horde comes predefined to auto-login every web session as Administrator, we want them to go to the site, set up something else, THEN and only THEN let other IPs hit the site. Otherwise they would be opening their horde site for lots of other people to play Administrator. If you think it's important I tell users that they need to graceful apache after editing the conf file, that's not a big deal, but that doesn't preclude this RPM's need to re[load|start]ing apache in %post. Now, if you don't mind, I'd like to give Jason a chance to do a real review on this package and give his feedback. This review has been open for 8 months... -- 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-13 14:05 EST --- I've found myself needing to get horde running in the relatively near term, and the CentOS packaging seems to be bogus in that they don't actually have the entire dependency chain packaged. (You can install horde and such but you still don't have the PEAR modules needed to run it.) So I'm willing to put in some review time if there's still interest in getting this in. -- 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-13 14:58 EST --- I'm extremely still interested in getting this package in... I've just not had anyone committed to a full review. I'll try to get some new RPMs out the door tonight that include php-domxml instead of php-xml per Greg's comments. WRT php-database, I'm torn. Granted, it's not required for horde to be operational, but most users will want to use horde's DB storage for preferences, etc. What is FE's usual best-practice for optional dependencies: minimalistic dependency chains for advanced users, or added dependencies for more default functionality? -- 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-13 15:40 EST --- The thing about requiring php_database is that if someone just does yum install horde then yum will find the packages providing php_database and if none is installed then it will pick the one with the shortest name. Since php-odbc is likely to be the least useful of all the packages, this is rather bad. So in general the dependency doesn't really help anyone. You'll still need to know to install whichever php-??sql you need, and in addition you'd need to get rid of the errant php-odbc package. So if the package is at all useful without one of those packages, I'd say to leave out the dependency. -- 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-13 17:10 EST --- I'll try to get some new RPMs out the door tonight that include php-domxml instead of php-xml per Greg's comments. Thanks, but if you're planning to make horde available for FC6, you'll still need to use php-xml - I think the issue was only fixed so far in Rawhide and RHEL5. Don't bother changing it - I'm sure it's more correct for you to require php-xml - my comments about that were off-topic for this bug report - sorry - I can't wait for Enterprise Extras though ;-) Also wanted to note that php-pear(File) is a suggested but optional pear module to install with Horde. I think it's the only pear module the horde apps can use that isn't in Extras. -- 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-13 18:52 EST --- I hesitate to suggest it, but theoretically someone could push a php-domxml package into extras that has no files and a single dependency on php-xml. But in the end it should be easy to just conditionalize the dependency based on the Fedora (or RHEL) release. -- 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||219575 -- 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-14 00:30 EST --- Spec URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/horde.spec SRPM URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/horde-3.1.3-6.src.rpm As promised, new RPMs. I've removed all mention of php_database and (hint): php-mysql. I've also taken the liberty of requiring php-pear-File, whose review this bug is depending on. I haven't changed php-xml. What I have should be sufficient to pass review for FC[56], and can be conditional-ized later for FC7 and EL. Also, instead of spamming the RPM install with configuration instructions, I have placed the instructions in a README.fedora file and subtly refer users to that file during the RPM install. -- 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-14 00:48 EST --- Spec URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/horde.spec SRPM URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/horde-3.1.3-7.src.rpm Oops! Fixed a couple incorrect paths pointing users to documentation. -- 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 Bug 189195 depends on bug 219575, which changed state. Bug 219575 Summary: Review Request: php-pear-File - Common file and directory routines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219575 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-15 14:36 EST --- Sort of a catch-22 that Horde requires php = 4.3, but is impossible to write a spec file that works for php4 and php5 (at the moment) because of this bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215655 Just making a note that if that bug is fixed, you could require php-domxml rather than php-xml and then RHEL4 and RHEL5 users could use this horde rpm. -- 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-15 14:48 EST --- (In reply to comment #17) Just making a note that if that bug is fixed, you could require php-domxml rather than php-xml and then RHEL4 and RHEL5 users could use this horde rpm. Of course that would also have to be cloned and fixed in the Fedora versions you plan to make this available for, so it's more of a long-term suggestion. -- 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-15 17:16 EST --- (In reply to comment #14) What are you unsure about php_database? That it's a valid requirement or that it is needed? It may not be needed in all configurations, so I think it should be removed. It is not in the 'Required' section of http://www.horde.org/horde/docs/? f=INSTALL.html#prerequisites - If a preference container is not configured, no preference options will be configurable via Horde's web interface - the default values stored in each applications config/prefs.php file will be used -- 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 23:29 EST --- Spec URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/horde.spec SRPM URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/horde-3.1.3-5.src.rpm I agree with your suggestions, and have implemented all of them. Note that rpmlint now complains with conffile-without-noreplace on the .dist and .xml files in /etc, but I have explained it in a note in the %files secion. -- 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-29 09:31 EST --- Just a couple comments - you symlinked to the config files. I think some people may need: Options FollowSymLinks ...in the Directory section. You might also consider adding: php_admin_flag safe_modeoff php_admin_flag register_globals off ... as recommended: http://www.horde.org/horde/docs/?f=SECURITY.html http://wiki.horde.org/SecurityTips Also, are you sure you want %config(noreplace) on the .xml file(s)? I don't think conf.xml needs to be modified ever, and it would change from release to release slightly I think. -- 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-13 21:54 EST --- Spec URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/horde.spec SRPM URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/horde-3.1.3-4.src.rpm Okay I've figured out how to use %find_lang... and it seems to work exactly like it's supposed to. All the .mo files end up in the proper location in /usr/share/locale/ What are you unsure about php_database? That it's a valid requirement or that it is needed? I assure you it's valid (at least in Core packages), just run 'yum provides php_database' and you'll see php-mysql, php-odbc, and php-pgsql. Since Horde supports all 3 of these DB backends (and many more), I'll settle for anything that provides php_database. -- 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-11 02:15 EST --- I'm not sure of the answer to your question, but you can always give it a try and see. But not using %find_lang is a blocker. Having a million different %lang doesnt look right, all spec files ive seen just use %find_lang. For more information see, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-8c605ebf8330f6d505f384e671986fa99a8f72ee The requires look better now, except I'm not sure about Requires: php_database -- 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-11 01:00 EST --- Spec URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/horde.spec SRPM URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/horde-3.1.3-3.src.rpm Bumped to 3.1.3, updated Requires:, properly tag %doc files. rpmlint is not kind to my noarch.rpm. IMO, all of them relating to /etc/horde can be ignored, including non-standard-[gu]id and non-standard file/dir permissions. The *.dist files are %config, but also IMO replacable as new config directives may trickle down from upstream and can then be compared against the REAL *.php config files. The rest seems like leftover cruft from the way the files were packaged upstream. It it our responsibility to run some obligatory chmod()s before the files get packaged? I set the final permissions for all relevant files during %install... Thanks for the comments Chris, cryptic as they may be. By 'updating with the Requires', I assume you meant 'rename php-pear-Mail_Mime to php-pear-Mail-Mime', which I've done. Sadly I'm not sure what you could mean by 'obviously does not handle locales properly'... this is my first encounter with locale-aware software, and I haven't found any documentation for %find_lang that I can use. Can you be more specific with what this package needs to do differently to avoid 'obviously not handle locales properly', or at least the name of a package that handles locales in a fashion similar to what horde needs? From my Comment #2 that was never answered: * the 'locale/*/horde.mo' files should be annotated with the corresponding %lang() tags; it would be probably the best to move them to the %regular /usr/share/locale and run '%find_lang horde' I've done the first part, labeled all the locales with the %lang() macro, but I'm not sure if %find_lang applied in this situation. All the horde locales are specified as ar_SY, bg_BG, en_US, etc... but most of the locales in /usr/share/locale is just the 2-letter ar, bg, en, etc. Is find_lang smart enough to overcome this, should I run some logic to figure it out myself, or should they be copied in as-is? -- 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 15:56 EST --- Well, it looks like all of the dependencies have been approved and should be in the repo soon. So who has what it takes to properly review this? -- 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 Bug 189195 depends on bug 190101, which changed state. Bug 190101 Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Log https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190101 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 Bug 189195 depends on bug 196824, which changed state. Bug 196824 Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Mail-Mime https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196824 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-05 23:44 EST --- Spec URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/horde.spec SRPM URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/horde-3.1.2-1.1.src.rpm Horde released 3.1.2 today to fix some security holes, thought I'd go ahead and package it up before the next review cycle :) -- 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||190101, 196824 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-27 00:28 EST --- Spec URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/horde.spec SRPM URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/horde-3.1.1-9.10.src.rpm I've gone ahead and added php-pear-DB (already in FE) php-pear-Log (bug 190101) and php-pear-Mail_Mime (mine, bug 196824) as dependencies, Thanks David. I've also added a quite verbose message in %post with further instructions on configuring, securing horde. -- 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-25 22:13 EST --- I wish... I'm just in a (seemingly permanenet) holding pattern waiting for somebody to give this a new review since my comment #2 submission. -- 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-25 22:27 EST --- How about starting by responding to comments #3 and #4 and then I'll try to take a look. -- 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-23 12:19 EST --- A while ago, I packaged horde and horde-nag for recreational use. Packages and specfiles can be found at http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/puppet-app/; the packages did work for deploying horde automatically with puppet (http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/puppet-app.html) Hope you'll find them useful for finishing up this package. From a quick look at the specfile, you need to add at least php-pear-Mail_Mime and php-pear-Log as dependencies for horde, and possibly php-pear-DB for any of the horde applications. -- 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-22 22:47 EST --- I'd really like to see this go in (because it would save me a massive amount of time), but aren't there a huge number of prerequisite Pear modules that need to be packaged first and be made prerequisites of this package? -- 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
