Bug 805666 - Review Request: lldpd - Link Layer Discovery Protocol Daemon
Summary: Review Request: lldpd - Link Layer Discovery Protocol Daemon
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Rex Dieter
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: FE-DEADREVIEW
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2012-03-21 18:46 UTC by Balaji G
Modified: 2013-10-29 14:57 UTC (History)
8 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-03-12 19:00:14 UTC
Type: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Balaji G 2012-03-21 18:46:13 UTC
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 08:54:39 UTC
Just a note: Fedora already ships with the Open-LLDP daemon, lldpad.

Comment 2 Rex Dieter 2012-03-27 16:41:59 UTC
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 16:48:43 UTC
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 08:34:49 UTC
(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 11:27:39 UTC
Peter, So if that's the case the lldpd wouldn't be allowed into the repos ?

Comment 6 Petr Šabata 2012-03-28 11:40:00 UTC
I hope so :)

Comment 7 Balaji G 2012-03-28 14:40:45 UTC
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 12:32:33 UTC
ping, any updated packages to look at yet?

Comment 9 Balaji G 2012-04-23 03:24:30 UTC
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 18:13:17 UTC
Any news here?

Comment 11 Rex Dieter 2012-11-08 15:43:51 UTC
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 19:00:14 UTC
marking dead review, feel free to re-open when/if you get interested in this again.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.