[Bug 736015] Review Request: fedfs-utils - Utilities for mounting and managing FedFS domains

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Sep 12 15:58:17 UTC 2011


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=736015

--- Comment #5 from Chuck Lever <chuck.lever at oracle.com> 2011-09-12 11:58:16 EDT ---
Proposed solutions:

(In reply to comment #4)
> 
> [makerpm at fedora15 fedfs-utils-0.7.0-1.fc15.src]$ rpmlint
> ../fedfs-utils-0.7.0-1.fc15.src ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/fedfs-utils-*
> fedfs-utils-admin.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US namespace ->
> name space, name-space, names pace

"name space" is fine, but "namespace" seems to be a common item of terminology.
 Should rpmlint be updated, or can we ignore this warning?

> fedfs-utils-server.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/fedfs fedfs
> fedfs-utils-server.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/fedfs fedfs

I'd like a special user and group for fedfs operation, although we could also
use the same one nfs-utils uses, which is "rpcuser" I believe.  Really, though,
this value needs to be specified via a ./configure option as well, to make it
easy for distributions to set it how they like.  I'm not familiar with the
rules around UID and GID usage.

> fedfs-utils-server.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/fedfs 0700L

What is suggested?

> fedfs-utils-server.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary resolve-junction

resolve-junction is going away in 0.8.0, which is why I didn't compose a man
page for it.  However, we could easily add a stub man page in 0.7, similar to
the man page for mount.nfs.

> I don't know anything about fedfs-utils, but breaking a quarter of a megabyte
> into 5 parts is probably not necessary.

We could reduce it to just three:  one common noarch package, one for client
pieces, and one for everything else.

-- 
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.



More information about the package-review mailing list