[Bug 359911] Review Request: drupal-views - Provides a method for site designers to control content presentation

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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=359911





--- Comment #21 from Till Maas <opensource at till.name>  2008-08-12 11:01:55 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> (In reply to comment #19)
> > (In reply to comment #18)
> > > Fixed all but the last chmod comment.  I don't see the error you mention, are
> > > these in rpmlint?  rpmlint -i is clean for me.
> > 
> > You see the error after you run "chmod g+s BUILD" where BUILD is the BUILD
> > directory you use for rpmbuild, afaik the default is ~/rpmbuild/BUILD. I
> > normally build rpms as a differenty user and therefore I set the BUILD directy
> > sgid, to have some permissions as my normal user. But this is not really
> > something that needs to be fixed, because in Fedora the rpms are built within
> > mock.
> 
> I don't see were in the spec or build process this happens.  Maybe it's just
> the time of day and my caffiene level, but. . .

It does not happen anywhere. I set the BUILD directory on my build machine to
sgid and then I get the 02755 errors from rpmlint for packages that do not set
the permissions explicitly.  It only meant to explain how one can get the
rpmlint error because Benjamin experienced them, too.

> > > Spec URL: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal-views/drupal-views.spec
> > > SRPM URL:
> > > http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal-views/drupal-views-6.x.2.0-0.1.beta4.fc9.src.rpm
> > 
> > Everything you fixed looks good. I was about to approve the package, but then I
> > noticed the 6.x in the version tag. I am not sure, whether it should be there
> > or better be a part of the package name:
> > 
> > Name: drupal-views-6.x
> > Version: 2.0
> > 
> > Because there are seveveral releases for several drupal branches listed on
> > http://drupal.org/project/views
> > 
> > What is your opinion about this?
> 
> I was thinking it's best left in the version, for easier dependency
> referencing, and so we don't need a whole new review for each module when
> Drupal bumps it's major version number.

ok. I noticed there is atleast one other packages with this version-scheme in
Fedora, so I guess it is not a problem. This packages is hereby APPROVED.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.