Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: lldpd - Link Layer Discovery Protocol Daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805666
Summary: Review Request: lldpd - Link Layer Discovery Protocol Daemon Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: balajig81@gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: ---
Spec URL: http://balajig8.fedorapeople.org/packages/lldp/lldpd.spec SRPM URL: http://balajig8.fedorapeople.org/packages/lldp/lldpd-0.5.7-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Link Layer Discovery Protocol Daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805666
Petr Šabata psabata@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |psabata@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Petr Šabata psabata@redhat.com 2012-03-22 04:54:39 EDT --- Just a note: Fedora already ships with the Open-LLDP daemon, lldpad.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805666
Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rdieter@math.unl.edu
--- Comment #2 from Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu 2012-03-27 12:41:59 EDT --- Petr, pardon my ignorance, but how is that relevant to lldpd exactly? (or just noting the potential of naming confusion?)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805666
--- Comment #3 from Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu 2012-03-27 12:48:43 EDT --- Initial comments:
1 SHOULD: drop reference to EOL'd el4 and simplify the spec by removing those extra macros
2. MUST: These look wrong to me: %define lldpd_user _lldpd %define lldpd_group _lldpd shouldn't those be the actual uid/gid to be used?
3. MUST: I don't see Source1: lldpd.service getting installed anywhere. else, all the systemd-related scriptlets will fail.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805666
Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |rdieter@math.unl.edu Flag| |fedora-review?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805666
--- Comment #4 from Petr Šabata psabata@redhat.com 2012-03-28 04:34:49 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2)
Petr, pardon my ignorance, but how is that relevant to lldpd exactly? (or just noting the potential of naming confusion?)
Yes, that. And sometimes people tend to argue whether it's a good idea to have more projects with similar functionality in the distro.
I have nothing against lldpd, just wanted to let the reporter and reviewer know in case they cared :)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805666
--- Comment #5 from Balaji G balajig81@gmail.com 2012-03-28 07:27:39 EDT --- Peter, So if that's the case the lldpd wouldn't be allowed into the repos ?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805666
--- Comment #6 from Petr Šabata psabata@redhat.com 2012-03-28 07:40:00 EDT --- I hope so :)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805666
--- Comment #7 from Balaji G balajig81@gmail.com 2012-03-28 10:40:45 EDT --- This package is part of the wishlist and hence i packaged it and the spec file was initially written for RHEL too, It would be nice if this is allowed as i could maintain it. Its gonna be only in the repos and i think it should be fair to allow this :)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805666
Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(balajig81@gmail.c | |om)
--- Comment #8 from Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu 2012-04-19 08:32:33 EDT --- ping, any updated packages to look at yet?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805666
Balaji G balajig81@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(balajig81@gmail.c | |om) |
--- Comment #9 from Balaji G balajig81@gmail.com 2012-04-22 23:24:30 EDT --- Sorry Rex. I have made the changes i ll upload the spec within this week. Was tied up a bit with other work :(
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805666
Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |volker27@gmx.at
--- Comment #10 from Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at --- Any news here?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805666
Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(balajig81@gmail.c | |om)
--- Comment #11 from Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu --- ping, ping, it's been awhile.
i'll give another week or 2 before considering closing as a dead review.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805666
Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Blocks| |201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Flags|fedora-review? | Flags|needinfo?(balajig81@gmail.c | |om) | Last Closed| |2013-03-12 15:00:14
--- Comment #12 from Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu --- marking dead review, feel free to re-open when/if you get interested in this again.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla