Red Hat Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
|Summary:||Review Request: lldpd - Link Layer Discovery Protocol Daemon|
|Product:||[Fedora] Fedora||Reporter:||Balaji G <balajig81>|
|Component:||Package Review||Assignee:||Rex Dieter <rdieter>|
|Status:||CLOSED NOTABUG||QA Contact:||Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>|
|Version:||rawhide||CC:||balajig81, hartsjc, kevin, notting, package-review, psabata, rdieter, volker27|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2013-03-12 15:00:14 EDT||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Bug Depends On:|
Description Balaji G 2012-03-21 14:46:13 EDT
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
Comment 1 Petr Šabata 2012-03-22 04:54:39 EDT
Just a note: Fedora already ships with the Open-LLDP daemon, lldpad.
Comment 2 Rex Dieter 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?)
Comment 3 Rex Dieter 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.
Comment 4 Petr Šabata 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 :)
Comment 5 Balaji G 2012-03-28 07:27:39 EDT
Peter, So if that's the case the lldpd wouldn't be allowed into the repos ?
Comment 6 Petr Šabata 2012-03-28 07:40:00 EDT
I hope so :)
Comment 7 Balaji G 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 :)
Comment 8 Rex Dieter 2012-04-19 08:32:33 EDT
ping, any updated packages to look at yet?
Comment 9 Balaji G 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 :(
Comment 10 Volker Fröhlich 2012-09-23 14:13:17 EDT
Any news here?
Comment 11 Rex Dieter 2012-11-08 10:43:51 EST
ping, ping, it's been awhile. i'll give another week or 2 before considering closing as a dead review.
Comment 12 Rex Dieter 2013-03-12 15:00:14 EDT
marking dead review, feel free to re-open when/if you get interested in this again.