Bug 998737
| Summary: | /var/spool/hylafax has incorrect ownership and other hylafax+ RPM problems | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Raman Gupta <rocketraman> |
| Component: | hylafax+ | Assignee: | Lee Howard <faxguy> |
| Status: | CLOSED EOL | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | 28 | CC: | faxguy, praiskup |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Reopened |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | hylafax+-5.5.5-1.el6 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2019-05-28 19:35:00 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | 1101325 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | |||
|
Description
Raman Gupta
2013-08-20 00:15:59 UTC
Adding uucp to both Requires and BuildRequires will resolve #1 and #2. I've committed the change to master, and a release is upcoming. I agree that a dependency on uucp is a bit deprecated, however, to overcome that dependency HylaFAX+ will need modification upstream. Such a change is not something that I want to do in the Fedora package only within the RPM (but rather within the HylaFAX+ source code proper). Unfortunately, I am not able to prioritize that development at the moment (contributions welcome), and so the uucp dependency must remain. As for #3... it would be possible to modify the hylafax+ startup script to also start faxgettys for each configured modem. This is how it is done in the Debian package. I'm not a fan of the exact method that Debian followed in doing that - as I'd prefer it to use inittab/upstart/systemd instead of simply daemonizing faxgetty (since the auto-restart done by init/upstart/systemd is often useful and preferred). However, this amounts to a feature request more than a bug report, and again, as I am not able to prioritize that development (contributions welcome), I'll need to leave this as-is. hylafax+-5.5.5-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/hylafax+-5.5.5-1.fc19 hylafax+-5.5.5-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/hylafax+-5.5.5-1.fc20 hylafax+-5.5.5-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/hylafax+-5.5.5-1.el5 hylafax+-5.5.5-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/hylafax+-5.5.5-1.el6 Package hylafax+-5.5.5-1.el5: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=epel-testing hylafax+-5.5.5-1.el5' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2014-1517/hylafax+-5.5.5-1.el5 then log in and leave karma (feedback). hylafax+-5.5.5-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. hylafax+-5.5.5-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. hylafax+-5.5.5-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. hylafax+-5.5.5-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. (In reply to Raman Gupta from comment #0) > First of all, its great that hylafax+ is now available as an RPM in Fedora. > However, I had some issues actually using it, and thought I would report > them here. > > 1) The hfaxd service seems to require the "uucp" user to be created in > /etc/passwd even though the RPM seems to create an "adm" user. If the "uucp" > user does not exist in /etc/passwd, then hfaxd reports: > > Aug 19 19:39:53 x HylaFAX[29439]: No fax user "uucp" defined on your system! Whould this be solved by.. Requires(pre): uucp ? I'm asking because I'm thinking about dropping the %ghost [1] hack in uucp.spec. That comes from bug 1101325. [1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/uucp/c/c58bea626ec9be1e96ca00ae3c3faa46a61eea4c I'm bit afraid that it could bring regression if things in hylafax+ stayed as-is. You've reopened a 3+ year-old bug. Is there a problem with "Requires: uucp" and "BuildRequires: uucp" ? Why do you consider %ghost to be a hack, and why do you feel inclined to drop it? Why change something that is working? (In reply to Lee Howard from comment #12) > You've reopened a 3+ year-old bug. Yes I know, sorry, but IMO that's the best I can do in such situations. > Is there a problem with "Requires: uucp" and "BuildRequires: uucp" ? It doesn't _guarantee_ you that your %pre scriptlet will have uucp installed. That's matter of "luck" basically. > Why do you consider %ghost to be a hack, and why do you feel inclined to > drop it? Why change something that is working? Good question, thanks. I think I was inspired by lockdev package, and I'm inclined to consider it is hack because it goes against the guidelines on [1]. I'm not sure, some additional observation is needed. After the time, I'm not sure how these two bugs are actually related... [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Tmpfiles.d This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 28 development cycle. Changing version to '28'. This message is a reminder that Fedora 28 is nearing its end of life. On 2019-May-28 Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 28. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '28'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 28 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. Fedora 28 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2019-05-28. Fedora 28 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed. |