why in the world does spamassassin pull the "portreserve" package these nobody needs even on machines running postfix, imapd, pop3d, lmtpd, httpd, named and what not for server packages for the 1 out of 10000 users a subpackage would be enough nobody has RPC services on mailservers [root@testserver:~]$ rpm -q --file /etc/portreserve/spamd spamassassin-3.4.0-7.fc20.x86_64 [root@testserver:~]$ cat /etc/portreserve/spamd 783
The original reason for using portreserve is discussed in bug #103401. However, I agree that it's probably not really necessary to pull portreserve if it's not installed and I'd propose this spec file change: diff --git a/spamassassin.spec b/spamassassin.spec index e70330e..6aeeae4 100644 --- a/spamassassin.spec +++ b/spamassassin.spec @@ -44,12 +44,6 @@ %define require_encode_detect 1 %endif -%if 0%{?fedora} >= 10 -# We use portreserve to prevent our TCP port being stolen. -# Require the package here so that we know /etc/portreserve/ exists. -Requires: portreserve -%endif - # Mail::DKIM by default (F11+) %if 0%{?fedora} >= 11 %define dkim_deps 1 @@ -282,6 +276,7 @@ install -m 0644 %{SOURCE13} $RPM_BUILD_DIR/Mail-SpamAssassi %dir %{_localstatedir}/run/spamassassin %dir %{_localstatedir}/lib/spamassassin %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/logrotate.d/sa-update +%dir %{_sysconfdir}/portreserve/ %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/portreserve/spamd %if %{use_systemd} %{_unitdir}/spamassassin.service
Sure, seems fine to me. You want to just apply it? Or would you like me to? 21/rawhide should be fine.
Kevin, I'd be glad if you do it. Thanks.
Built in rawhide. I'll leave it at that unless we want to push down to stable releases later.