|Summary:||Merge Review: setup|
|Product:||[Fedora] Fedora||Reporter:||Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>|
|Component:||Package Review||Assignee:||Gwyn Ciesla <gwync>|
|Status:||CLOSED ERRATA||QA Contact:||Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review>|
|Version:||rawhide||CC:||gwync, ovasik, pertusus, pknirsch, redhat-bugzilla, ville.skytta|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2009-03-24 12:46:23 UTC||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Bug Depends On:|
Description Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it 2007-01-31 20:58:30 UTC
Fedora Merge Review: setup http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/setup/ Initial Owner: firstname.lastname@example.org
Comment 1 Patrice Dumas 2007-11-14 23:03:51 UTC
Currently filesystem depends on setup. Shouldn't it be the other way around?
Comment 2 Robert Scheck 2007-11-14 23:07:33 UTC
AFAIK filesystem is the first package installed, because it provides / (the real root) where everything else depends on.
Comment 3 Patrice Dumas 2007-11-14 23:18:43 UTC
But it is not the case since it depends on setup.
Comment 4 Gwyn Ciesla 2008-12-11 16:43:27 UTC
rpmlint on SRPM clean. rpmlint on RPMS: setup.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/securetty 0600 The file can't be read by everybody. If this is expected (for security reasons), contact your rpmlint distributor to get it added to the list of exceptions for your distro (or add it to your local configuration if you installed rpmlint from the source tarball). setup.noarch: E: zero-length /etc/environment setup.noarch: E: zero-length /etc/motd setup.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/shadow 0400 The file can't be read by everybody. If this is expected (for security reasons), contact your rpmlint distributor to get it added to the list of exceptions for your distro (or add it to your local configuration if you installed rpmlint from the source tarball). setup.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/gshadow 0400 The file can't be read by everybody. If this is expected (for security reasons), contact your rpmlint distributor to get it added to the list of exceptions for your distro (or add it to your local configuration if you installed rpmlint from the source tarball). setup.noarch: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /etc/profile.d This package owns a directory that is part of the standard hierarchy, which can lead to default directory permissions or ownerships being changed to something non-standard. setup.noarch: E: zero-length /etc/exports setup.noarch: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/lastlog This package contains files in /var/log/ without adding logrotate configuration for them. These should all be filed as rpmlint exceptions. Page in URL is default Trac page. Might want to look into that. :) Source tag needs to include a URL: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL Should also be Source0, not simply Source. I don't see any license information in the source or the website, just the spec. Add something to the upstream documenting the licensing, then include it in %doc. Otherwise, very simple package, no other blockers.
Comment 5 Ondrej Vasik 2009-03-23 14:06:30 UTC
Thanks for review, accidently I was not on CC after I got that package under maintainance, so sorry for late response. will contact rpmlint maintainer as those files should really be in rpmlint exceptions list. I added basic "one-minute-work" starting page instead of Trac page, fixed Source (and uploaded tarball on fedorahosted.org/releases/). License information was also added on starting page, as .spec file is part of tarball, I guess it's not needed to add license information into separate COPYING (or something like that) file - but if you feel it's worth of it, no problem, I could create such file and ship it as %doc file.
Comment 6 Ondrej Vasik 2009-03-23 14:22:39 UTC
Adding rpmlint maintainer to CC, to keep exception list discussion within that review.
Comment 7 Gwyn Ciesla 2009-03-23 17:39:51 UTC
Looks good. Based on my interpretation of the guidelines here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text I'd say make the COPYING file and put it in %doc. Makes it easier to find, since though rpm -qi is pretty easy, that won't work on a system booted from a livecd with it's hard drives under examination, etc. Thanks for getting back to this. :)
Comment 8 Ville Skyttä 2009-03-23 19:05:25 UTC
/etc/shadow, /etc/gshadow and /etc/securetty are now ok as unreadable in upstream rpmlint, I'm not sure if the others need any exceptions (rpmlint can always be ignored...) http://rpmlint.zarb.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/changeset/1580
Comment 9 Ondrej Vasik 2009-03-24 11:22:38 UTC
(In reply to comment #8) You are right, rpmlint can always be ignored, just as suggestion - I guess errors for empty files should be silenced or changed to warnings in the case of config files. Config files purpose is user modification and could be empty many times. (In reply to comment #7) Done, COPYING file in %doc shipped in setup-2.8.2-1.fc11
Comment 10 Gwyn Ciesla 2009-03-24 12:46:23 UTC
Great! APPROVED. Thanks for your work.