[Bug 225708] New: Merge Review: dovecot

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225708

Summary: Merge Review: dovecot
           Product: Fedora Extras
           Version: devel
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: normal
         Component: Package Review
        AssignedTo: [e-mail]
        ReportedBy: [e-mail]
         QAContact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail]

Fedora Merge Review: dovecot

http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/dovecot/
Initial Owner: [e-mail]

[Bug 225708] Merge Review: dovecot

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: dovecot

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225708

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

[Bug 225708] Merge Review: dovecot

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: dovecot

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225708

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-02-26 02:15 EST -------
Executive Summary:
Okay this package needs some work.  I've tried to incorporate as many of the
important changes as I could into an updated specfile. I will attach a diff of
my spec against the spec in fedora core cvs for your to look over. Additionally
you can find my spec and the srpm built from it at.
Please take a close look at the specfile diff. If there are any changes that you
have an issue with, we will need to discuss them.

I'll probably have other minor specfile cleanup suggestions on a second pass
through the specfile after we work through the important changes.

The very detailed review follows below.

Legend:  
GOOD: +  BAD: -   
Not Applicable: N/A  
Still in Progress or questinable: ?

+ MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ MUST: The spec file name is good
+ MUST: The package is licensed with approved licenses
+ MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the most relevant
actual license.
  Comment: parts of the upstream code are lcensed under the MIT license, but it
is probably best to list the LGPL here alone, since by the nature of the
interaction of the licenses the LGPL applies to everything in the upstream source.
+ MUST: The spec file is written in a close approximation of American English.
+ MUST: The spec file for the package is legible. 
+ MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
  see
http://linux.dell.com/files/fedora/FixBuildRequires/mock-results-core/i386/d...
+ MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines; inclusion of
those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
+ MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
+ MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
+ MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is described
in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
+ MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. 
  Comment: This appears to be true

- MUST: rpmlint output with comments inline below.
- MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.  
  Need to include COPYING COPYING.MIT and COPYING.LGPL in the docs.  Fixed in
updated spec diff
- MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
  The SOURCE0 url was inadequate, fixed in the supplied specfile diff.
  md5sum check passes:
  upstraam release: d5bd3ce8ba7ca2ee9f563fe63a1f700a  dovecot-1.0.rc22.tar.gz
  included source:  d5bd3ce8ba7ca2ee9f563fe63a1f700a  dovecot-1.0.rc22.tar.gz
- MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. 
  comment: /etc/pki/dovecot not owned, fixed in provided specfile diff         
- MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
properly if it is  not present.
  comment: mkcert.sh is being used in %post.  This is not good and it breaks the
rule concerning running properly if docs are not present.  mkcert should be
moved to libexec and used from there. Fixed in the provided spec.
- MUST: Header files or static libraries must be in a -devel package.
  comment: Need to remove .a files or create a -devel package for them with a
justification as to why the static libs are needed.  The best thing to do is to
remove the .la and .a files all together.  This is done in the specfile diff
provided.
- MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.
  Comment: removed in the provided specfile diff.

? MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun. If the package has multiple subpackages with libraries, each
subpackage should also have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig.
  Comment:  shared libs exist in /usr/lib/dovecot but they appear to be simple
plugins for dovecot's own runtime use and not meant for linking.  if this is the
case, then no corrections need to be made. Please confirm that the items in
/usr/lib/dovecot are not meant to be dynamically linkable libraries.
? MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. 
  comment: see rpmlint comments below
? MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.

N/A MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
N/A MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. 
N/A package is not designed to be relocatable
N/A MUST: No Large documentation files or -doc subpackage. 
N/A no  pkgconfig(.pc) files in payload
N/A MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a
-devel package.
N/A MUST: no devel subpackage In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must
require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release} 
N/A Package does not contain GUI application no need for a %{name}.desktop file

RPMLINT COMMENTS INLINE

http://linux.dell.com/files/fedora/FixBuildRequires/mock-results-core/i386/d...
rpmlint on dovecot-1.0-3.rc22.fc7.src.rpm
W: dovecot strange-permission migrate-users 0755
W: dovecot strange-permission migrate-folders 0755
W: dovecot strange-permission dovecot.init 0755
W: dovecot strange-permission perfect_maildir.pl 0755
...These permissions appear to be okay to me. 
W: dovecot prereq-use openssl >= 0.9.7f-4, /sbin/chkconfig, /usr/sbin/useradd
... Requires fixed in provided specfile diff. prereq is no longer valid. See the
PackagingGuidelines for more details
E: dovecot configure-without-libdir-spec
?????  I am not sure what rpmlint is trying to tell us here.
E: dovecot use-of-RPM_SOURCE_DIR
.... The other option would be to use the appropriate SOURCE# macros for each
source file.  Changed in the specfile diff provided.
W: dovecot macro-in-%changelog _datadir
W: dovecot macro-in-%changelog post
.... Editted in spec diff
W: dovecot mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 82, tab: line 84)
.... fixed in spec diff
W: dovecot patch-not-applied Patch104: dovecot-1.0.beta2-lib64.patch
.... commented out in spec diff

rpmlint on dovecot-1.0-3.rc22.fc7.i386.rpm
W: dovecot conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/pam.d/dovecot
W: dovecot conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rc.d/init.d/dovecot
.... I think the pam.d config needs to be noreplace to perserve local admin
changes if they are made. Updated in the specfile diff.
E: dovecot non-standard-gid /var/run/dovecot dovecot
.... this is fine.
E: dovecot executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/dovecot
.... this is standard for initscripts
E: dovecot non-readable /etc/pki/dovecot/certs/dovecot.pem 0600
E: dovecot non-standard-uid /var/lib/dovecot dovecot
E: dovecot non-standard-gid /var/lib/dovecot dovecot
E: dovecot non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/dovecot 0750
E: dovecot non-standard-gid /var/run/dovecot/login dovecot
E: dovecot non-standard-dir-perm /var/run/dovecot/login 0750
E: dovecot non-readable /etc/pki/dovecot/private/dovecot.pem 0600
.... all of these rpmlint errors appear to be bogus to me. Please confirm that
the permissions and ownership are as intended for these.
E: dovecot non-standard-gid /usr/share/doc/dovecot-1.0/examples/mkcert.sh dovecot
E: dovecot non-readable /usr/share/doc/dovecot-1.0/examples/mkcert.sh 0750
E: dovecot non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/dovecot-1.0/examples/mkcert.sh 0750
.... I think these are valid errors, if mkcert.sh is really meant to be a doc
item. But its being used in post so it needs to be moved out of the doc area.
     Fixed in provided spec diff.
W: dovecot devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/dovecot/lib20_convert_plugin.a
W: dovecot devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/dovecot/imap/lib11_imap_quota_plugin.a
W: dovecot devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/dovecot/imap/lib20_zlib_plugin.a
W: dovecot devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/dovecot/lib01_acl_plugin.a
W: dovecot devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/dovecot/lib11_trash_plugin.a
W: dovecot devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/dovecot/lib10_quota_plugin.a
W: dovecot devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/dovecot/lib02_lazy_expunge_plugin.a
W: dovecot devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/dovecot/lib20_mail_log_plugin.a
....  the .a files are removed in specfile diff
W: dovecot dangerous-command-in-%pre rm
W: dovecot dangerous-command-in-%post mv
W: dovecot dangerous-command-in-%preun userdel
....  I think these warnings are bogus. Though you may want to look back over 
      the use of the rm and mv commands to see if they are still needed.
      I think I understand why the restart_flag logic is present.  
      But I do not understand why the ssl cert manipulation logic block is in  
      %post.  All the file location testing and conditional use of mv. What
      cases trigger the mv commands? Is this logic meant for now EOL'd fedora 
      and rhl releases?

[Bug 225708] Merge Review: dovecot

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: dovecot

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225708

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-02-26 02:18 EST -------
Created an attachment (id=148781)
 --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148781&action=vie...)
Diff of spec file changes for merge review items

This is the diff between the dovecot.spec in fedora cvs and my merge review
edditted dovecot.spec.

[Bug 225708] Merge Review: dovecot

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: dovecot

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225708

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|[e-mail]          |[e-mail]
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review-

[Bug 225708] Merge Review: dovecot

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: dovecot

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225708

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-02-26 02:24 EST -------
You can find the srpm and spec file with my changes at:
http://jspaleta.thecodergeek.com/merge-review/dovecot/

-jef

[Bug 225708] Merge Review: dovecot

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: dovecot

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225708

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-02-26 10:09 EST -------
Comment:  shared libs exist in /usr/lib/dovecot but they appear to be simple
plugins for dovecot's own runtime use and not meant for linking.  if this is the
case, then no corrections need to be made. Please confirm that the items in
/usr/lib/dovecot are not meant to be dynamically linkable libraries.

With respect to the above comment,
If there is no -devel package, does that stop someone from being able to build
something like http://wiki.dovecot.org/LDA/Sieve?highlight=%28dovecot-sieve%29
against it? I know that Sieve will not build the way dovecot is currently
packaged, because the Sieve program needs to be able to find a file called
dovecot-config in the "compiled Dovecot sources". I do not know what the correct
way to handle this but I ask that you take my comments into consideration, in
case someone would like to use Dovecot-Sive with this package.

[Bug 225708] Merge Review: dovecot

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: dovecot

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225708

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |NEEDINFO
         AssignedTo|[e-mail]         |[e-mail]
               Flag|fedora-review-              |needinfo?([e-mail]
                   |                            |m), fedora-review?

[Bug 225708] Merge Review: dovecot

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: dovecot

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225708

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEEDINFO                    |ASSIGNED
               Flag|needinfo?([e-mail]|
                   |m)                          |

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-03-02 10:01 EST -------
Hi Jef,
thanks for your review, I applied your diff and commited, just changed the
section removing .la/.a files to use find instead. My comments follow:

(In reply to comment #1)
> ? MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
> symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
> %post and %postun. If the package has multiple subpackages with libraries, each
> subpackage should also have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig.
>   Comment:  shared libs exist in /usr/lib/dovecot but they appear to be simple
> plugins for dovecot's own runtime use and not meant for linking.  if this is the
> case, then no corrections need to be made. Please confirm that the items in
> /usr/lib/dovecot are not meant to be dynamically linkable libraries.

I confirm that.
> E: dovecot configure-without-libdir-spec
> ?????  I am not sure what rpmlint is trying to tell us here.

This is probably a rpmlint bug, the libdir is passed by %configure itself.
> E: dovecot non-readable /etc/pki/dovecot/certs/dovecot.pem 0600
> E: dovecot non-standard-uid /var/lib/dovecot dovecot
> E: dovecot non-standard-gid /var/lib/dovecot dovecot
> E: dovecot non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/dovecot 0750
> E: dovecot non-standard-gid /var/run/dovecot/login dovecot
> E: dovecot non-standard-dir-perm /var/run/dovecot/login 0750
> E: dovecot non-readable /etc/pki/dovecot/private/dovecot.pem 0600
> .... all of these rpmlint errors appear to be bogus to me. Please confirm that
> the permissions and ownership are as intended for these.

Yes, they are.
> W: dovecot dangerous-command-in-%pre rm
> W: dovecot dangerous-command-in-%post mv
> W: dovecot dangerous-command-in-%preun userdel
> ....  I think these warnings are bogus. Though you may want to look back over 
>       the use of the rm and mv commands to see if they are still needed.
>       I think I understand why the restart_flag logic is present.  
>       But I do not understand why the ssl cert manipulation logic block is in  
>       %post.  All the file location testing and conditional use of mv. What
>       cases trigger the mv commands? Is this logic meant for now EOL'd fedora 
>       and rhl releases?

Yeah, the certificate paths used to be different, this block moves them to new
location.

(In reply to comment #4)
> If there is no -devel package, does that stop someone from being able to build
> something like http://wiki.dovecot.org/LDA/Sieve?highlight=%28dovecot-sieve%29
> against it? I know that Sieve will not build the way dovecot is currently
> packaged, because the Sieve program needs to be able to find a file called
> dovecot-config in the "compiled Dovecot sources". I do not know what the correct
> way to handle this but I ask that you take my comments into consideration, in
> case someone would like to use Dovecot-Sive with this package.

I didn't find any easy way to make dovecot-sieve compile against packaged
version. It just wants access to the dovecot build dir. I might create a -devel
package in the future as upstream added an option to install headers, but the
location of things is probably still not ok. Regarding dovecot-sieve, we'll
probably build that from the same source package.

[Bug 225708] Merge Review: dovecot

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: dovecot

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225708

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-03-04 04:09 EST -------
(In reply to comment #5)
> Yeah, the certificate paths used to be different, this block moves them to new
> location.

Would it be possible to drop these? When did the paths change? How far back in
terms of fedora releases is this actually useful? Or if it can't be dropped can
this be converted to a trigger?

[Bug 225708] Merge Review: dovecot

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: dovecot

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225708

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-03-05 06:50 EST -------
The newest fedora rls in which the old paths are used is FC-3. They are used in
RHEL-4 as well. Should I remove the block then?

[Bug 225708] Merge Review: dovecot

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: dovecot

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225708

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|normal                      |medium
           Priority|normal                      |medium
            Product|Fedora Extras               |Fedora

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |fedora-cvs?

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-10-15 11:03 EST -------
Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: dovecot
New Branches: F-8

[Bug 225708] Merge Review: dovecot

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: dovecot

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225708

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-cvs?                 |fedora-cvs+

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-10-15 11:26 EST -------
cvs done.

[Bug 225708] Merge Review: dovecot

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: dovecot

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225708

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Version|devel                       |rawhide

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2008-05-22 05:09 EST -------
Some comments on the current scriptlets.

1. In %post, the code to migrate the certificates from the old locations is
enclosed in a block that is only used on installs, not upgrades. Isn't the
entire point of the certificate-moving code to facilitate tidy upgrades?

2. Again in %post, the certificate and DH parameter generation is only done for
installs, not upgrades. But the certificates and DH parameters are only
generated if they don't already exist anyway, so it seems to me that the test
for "install, not upgrade" can be dispensed with entirely.

3. Why is the "service dovecot condrestart" in %postun rather than %post? When
upgrading from a version of dovecot prior to this one, the condrestart won't
happen (though it will for subsequent upgrades).

4. Again in %postun, the removal of the dovecot group and user should be
stripped out - the current packaging guidelines say not to remove
package-created users and groups
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/UsersAndGroups). Similarly, in %pre,
the creation of the dovecot user account doesn't follow the currently prescribed
recipe (that includes the use of getent).

[Bug 225708] Merge Review: dovecot

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: dovecot

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225708

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2008-05-22 05:30 EST -------
1. + 2. I will recheck the logic

3.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SysVInitScript#head-91577460937bcc1e...

4. looks like I missed this guideline, but found some other about
UsersAndGroups, I will fix it

Thanks for catching this issues.

[Bug 225708] Merge Review: dovecot

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: dovecot

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225708

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2008-05-29 03:16 EST -------
updated version was commited

ad 1. + 2. - I have removed the whole upgrading part of the scriptlet because it
was useful only when upgrading from versions < 1.0 and any serious user has
already done an upgrade for at least security reasons

ad 4. - fixed

http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewcvs/rpms/dovecot/devel/dovecot.spec?rev=1.1...

[Bug 225708] Merge Review: dovecot

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=225708

Jussi Lehtola  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #13 from Jussi Lehtola   2009-03-27 03:30:19 EDT ---
Ping, any progress?

[Bug 225708] Merge Review: dovecot

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=225708

--- Comment #14 from Michal Hlavinka   2009-04-20 04:58:25 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Ping, any progress?

dovecot.spec has been updated, waiting for objections :o)

[Bug 225708] Merge Review: dovecot

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=225708

--- Comment #15 from Michal Hlavinka   2009-11-26 08:53:46 EDT ---
ping, any update?

[Bug 225708] Merge Review: dovecot

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=225708

Paul Howarth  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |needinfo?([e-mail]
                   |                            |m)

--- Comment #16 from Paul Howarth   2009-11-27 05:40:20 EDT ---
Jef, are you still interested in completing this review or would it be OK for
someone else to take over?

[Bug 225708] Merge Review: dovecot

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=225708

--- Comment #17 from Paul Howarth  2010-04-09 07:11:27 EDT ---
No response from Jef for 5 months; anyone object to me taking over the review?

[Bug 225708] Merge Review: dovecot

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=225708

--- Comment #18 from Michal Hlavinka  2010-06-10 11:32:41 EDT ---
no objections from me, it's another two months, I think you can take it

[Bug 225708] Merge Review: dovecot

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=225708

Michal Hlavinka  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|[e-mail]          |[e-mail]
               Flag|fedora-review?,             |
                   |needinfo?([e-mail] |
                   |m)                          |

--- Comment #19 from Michal Hlavinka  2012-01-04 11:02:24 EST ---
no response for a looong time, I've reset assignee of this bug, so anyone else
can take it.

[Bug 225708] Merge Review: dovecot

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=225708

Paul Howarth  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]

--- Comment #20 from Paul Howarth  2012-02-23 07:49:01 EST ---
Some comments from comparing the built packages with my local build (see
http://www.city-fan.org/cfo-trac/browser/dovecot/trunk):

You could include /var/run/dovecot, /var/run/dovecot/login and
/var/run/dovecot/empty as regular (not %ghost) directories in the package and
add entries for the latter two directories in the tmpfiles.d config file. There
would no longer be any need then to create/chown/restorecon those directories
in %post, and an rpm query for ownership of the directories would give the
proper answer.

The main package contains %_libexecdir/dovecot/managesieve and
%_libexecdir/dovecot/managesieve-login, which are duplicates of the ones in the
pigeonhole package.

The main package contains %_libdir/dovecot/lib90_sieve_plugin.so, which should
be (but isn't) in the pigeonhole package.

Perhaps the main package should own the %_libdir/dovecot/settings directory in
case any package other than the pigeonhole one wanted to drop files in there in
the future?

I have a Requires(post) for openssl for the mkcert.sh script but I guess that's
covered by the Requires: openssl anyway?

The Requires(post) and Requires(preun) of chkconfig are not needed for
systemd-based releases.

The Requires(post) and Requires(preun) of shadow-utils are not needed at all.

The Requires(preun) of initscripts is not needed for systemd-based releases.

Perhaps install the pigeonhole documentation into directory
%_docdir/dovecot-pigeonhole-2.1.0 as per the rpm package name/version rather
than %_docdir/dovecot-2.1-pigeonhole-0.3.0 as per upstream naming?

[Bug 225708] Merge Review: dovecot

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=225708

--- Comment #21 from Michal Hlavinka  2012-02-24 07:33:55 EST ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> Some comments from comparing the built packages with my local build (see
> http://www.city-fan.org/cfo-trac/browser/dovecot/trunk):
>
> You could include /var/run/dovecot, /var/run/dovecot/login and
> /var/run/dovecot/empty as regular (not %ghost) directories in the package and
> add entries for the latter two directories in the tmpfiles.d config file. There
> would no longer be any need then to create/chown/restorecon those directories
> in %post, and an rpm query for ownership of the directories would give the
> proper answer.

I prefer it the way it is now.
> The main package contains %_libexecdir/dovecot/managesieve and
> %_libexecdir/dovecot/managesieve-login, which are duplicates of the ones in the
> pigeonhole package.

fixed
> The main package contains %_libdir/dovecot/lib90_sieve_plugin.so, which should
> be (but isn't) in the pigeonhole package.

fixed
> Perhaps the main package should own the %_libdir/dovecot/settings directory in
> case any package other than the pigeonhole one wanted to drop files in there in
> the future?

fixed
> I have a Requires(post) for openssl for the mkcert.sh script but I guess that's
> covered by the Requires: openssl anyway?

yes
> The Requires(post) and Requires(preun) of chkconfig are not needed for
> systemd-based releases.

fixed
> The Requires(post) and Requires(preun) of shadow-utils are not needed at all.

fixed
> The Requires(preun) of initscripts is not needed for systemd-based releases.

fixed
> Perhaps install the pigeonhole documentation into directory
> %_docdir/dovecot-pigeonhole-2.1.0 as per the rpm package name/version rather
> than %_docdir/dovecot-2.1-pigeonhole-0.3.0 as per upstream naming?

I did this intentionally because it's better (at least in my opinion :)