| 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> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | balajig81, hartsjc, kevin, notting, package-review, psabata, rdieter, volker27 |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2013-03-12 19:00:14 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 201449 | ||
|
Description
Balaji G
2012-03-21 18:46:13 UTC
Just a note: Fedora already ships with the Open-LLDP daemon, lldpad. Petr, pardon my ignorance, but how is that relevant to lldpd exactly? (or just noting the potential of naming confusion?) 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. (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 :) Peter, So if that's the case the lldpd wouldn't be allowed into the repos ? I hope so :) 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 :) ping, any updated packages to look at yet? Sorry Rex. I have made the changes i ll upload the spec within this week. Was tied up a bit with other work :( Any news here? ping, ping, it's been awhile. i'll give another week or 2 before considering closing as a dead review. marking dead review, feel free to re-open when/if you get interested in this again. |