rpms/ntop/devel .cvsignore,1.3,1.4 ntop.spec,1.4,1.5 sources,1.3,1.4

[Rakesh Pandit]

I had been dealing with ntop bugs always. I did not upgraded to 3.3.9
because that had a dependency for a dat file with is actually a big
big binary with different license which is itself an issue. So, I
thought about waiting for 4.x.x release.

I had been mentioning this in different bugs against it. Why would you
update without even pinging me ?

2009/3/2 Peter Vrabec wrote:
> Author: pvrabec
>
> Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/ntop/devel
> In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv7164
>
> Modified Files:
>        .cvsignore ntop.spec sources
> Log Message:
> - upgrade
> - invalid certificate fix (#486725)
>
>
>
> Index: .cvsignore
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/ntop/devel/.cvsignore,v
> retrieving revision 1.3
> retrieving revision 1.4
> diff -u -r1.3 -r1.4
> --- .cvsignore  22 Oct 2008 13:36:48 -0000      1.3
> +++ .cvsignore  2 Mar 2009 18:09:12 -0000       1.4
> @@ -1 +1,4 @@
> -ntop-3.3.8.tar.gz
> +GeoIP.tar.gz
> +GeoIPASNum.dat.gz
> +GeoLiteCity.dat.gz
> +ntop-3.3.9.tar.gz
>
>
> Index: ntop.spec
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/ntop/devel/ntop.spec,v
> retrieving revision 1.4
> retrieving revision 1.5
> diff -u -r1.4 -r1.5
> --- ntop.spec   26 Feb 2009 06:19:10 -0000      1.4
> +++ ntop.spec   2 Mar 2009 18:09:12 -0000       1.5
> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
>  Name:           ntop
> -Version:        3.3.8
> -Release:        3%{?dist}
> +Version:        3.3.9
> +Release:        1%{?dist}
>  Summary:        A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command
>  Group:          Applications/Internet
>  License:        GPLv2

After these inclusions license is not right ?

Check:
http://geolite.maxmind.com/download/geoip/database/LICENSE.txt

> @@ -8,17 +8,21 @@
>  Source0:        http://downloads.sourceforge.net/ntop/ntop-%{version}.tar.gz
>  Source1:        ntop.init
>  Source2:        ntop.conf
> +Source3:        GeoIP.tar.gz
> +Source4:        GeoLiteCity.dat.gz
> +Source5:        GeoIPASNum.dat.gz

Complete URL would be better ?? These are big big files which have
text data but it is equivalent to binary in the sense that it cann't
be comprehended straight away. Is it okay for including in Fedora is a
question ?

>  Patch1:         ntop-am.patch
>  Patch2:         ntop-running-user.patch
>  Patch3:         ntop-dbfile-default-dir.patch
[..]
>
>  %changelog
> -* Wed Feb 25 2009 Fedora Release Engineering <rel-eng at lists.fedoraproject.org> - 3.3.8-3
> -- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_11_Mass_Rebuild
> +* Fri Feb 27 2009 Peter Vrabec <pvrabec at redhat.com> - 3.3.9-1
> +- upgrade
> +- invalid certificate fix (#486725)

Why would you remove old changelog entry ? Some more information in
addition to upgrade wouldn't hurt also.

Well certificate fix was also not that important. Now the rpm size is big.

My point is a ping before an upgrade or a mail would not have hurt ? I
was just away for past 10 days (I had noted that down in wiki also)

--
Regards,
Rakesh Pandit