https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544468
Steve Grubb changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544468
--- Comment #21 from Gwyn Ciesla ---
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fapolicyd
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544468
Marek Tamaskovic changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--
You are receivi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544468
--- Comment #20 from Steve Grubb ---
It is using non-standard permissions because the people being watched should
not be able to see the actual policy to work out loop holes in the policy. The
group permission is so that the daemon can reread
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544468
Marek Tamaskovic changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review?
--- Comment #19 fro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544468
Marek Tamaskovic changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #18 fro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544468
--- Comment #17 from Daniel Kopeček ---
(In reply to Steve Grubb from comment #16)
> The guidelines say we can use the variables as long as we are self
> consistent. There are no uses of %{buildroot}, so it is self consistent.
Consistent woul
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544468
--- Comment #16 from Steve Grubb ---
The guidelines say we can use the variables as long as we are self consistent.
There are no uses of %{buildroot}, so it is self consistent. However, its not
worth discussing. I changed it and updated the FS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544468
--- Comment #15 from Daniel Kopeček ---
(In reply to Steve Grubb from comment #14)
> >In %build section you are using macro style and in %install you are
> > using variable style. Choose one.
>
> To make sure we are looking at the same thing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544468
--- Comment #14 from Steve Grubb ---
>In %build section you are using macro style and in %install you are
> using variable style. Choose one.
To make sure we are looking at the same thing, this is what I see in the spec
file:
%build
%config
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544468
Marek Tamaskovic changed:
What|Removed |Added
Comment #13 is|1 |0
private|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544468
--- Comment #12 from Steve Grubb ---
(In reply to Marek Tamaskovic from comment #11)
> If the daemon is not required during boot or recovery it is supposed to go
> to /usr/sbin.[1]
This was already moved in last respin. :-) Is there something
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544468
--- Comment #11 from Marek Tamaskovic ---
If the daemon is not required during boot or recovery it is supposed to go to
/usr/sbin.[1]
And change RPM_BUILD_ROOT variable to macro `%{buildroot}`. It should be
consistent. Don't mix macros and va
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544468
--- Comment #10 from Steve Grubb ---
>Why are you using /sbin in configure? On your github you are working with
>>/usr/sbin. Working with /sbin is not standard.
Its because /sbin is where daemons belong on most distributions. To fix this
mea
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544468
--- Comment #9 from Marek Tamaskovic ---
And build is passing:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25067209
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544468
--- Comment #8 from Marek Tamaskovic ---
Created attachment 1396423
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1396423&action=edit
first review checklist
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Yo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544468
--- Comment #7 from Marek Tamaskovic ---
Issues:
===
- Dist tag is present.
- Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: fapolicyd-debugsource :
/usr/src/debug/fapolicyd-0.8.5-1.x86_64/src/event.h fapolicyd-debugsource
: /u
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544468
--- Comment #6 from Steve Grubb ---
Ah! You are right. We are using libudev and it has been subsumed into systemd.
So, systemd-devel is appropriate. Fixed.
New spec and SRPM is posted.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544468
--- Comment #5 from Marek Tamaskovic ---
I can't build that package without the systemd-devel
Checking for required libraries
checking for udev_device_get_devnode in -ludev... no
configure: error: libudev not found
error: Bad exit status from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544468
Steve Grubb changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(sgr...@redhat.com |
|)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544468
Marek Tamaskovic changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sgr...@redhat.com
Flags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544468
--- Comment #2 from Steve Grubb ---
Thanks for the review. New SRPM and spec file reposted.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1)
> Hello,
>
> - Not used in Fedora anymore:
>
> Group:
>
> BuildRoot:
>
> rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROO
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544468
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Hello,
- Not used in Fedora anymore:
Group:
BuildRoot:
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
- Use the correct systemd macros:
%{?systemd_requires}
BuildRequires: systemd
- the l
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544468
Daniel Kopeček changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
24 matches
Mail list logo
