[Bug 173459] Review Request: initng

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: initng


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=173459


daner964 at student.liu.se changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Attachment #128253|0                           |1
        is obsolete|                            |




------- Additional Comments From daner964 at student.liu.se  2006-04-27 02:05 EST -------
Created an attachment (id=128285)
 --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=128285&action=view)
initng-ifiles 0.0.3.1-3 spec file

(In reply to comment #250)
> 1. initng-ifiles %post doesent generate the required files... 
> the generate script actually only does something if the -all switch is used.

I really wonder why that was changed. Well, I'll add -all to it then...

> 3. and initng %post requires grubby to be installed. (post requires)

Check again. Grubby is run from %triggerin -- mkinitrd now.


(In reply to comment #251)
> #250: 2. audit wasnt installed on my fc5 test system (fresh install with 
> updates) i have to look into that. not an initng problem really unless maybe
of 
> the runlevel gen... why did it add it when its not present.

Hmmm... I thought audit was one of those fundamental things that was installed
on all recent fedora systems?


(In reply to comment #252)
> at some point of booting up initng output becomes russian for me. someone has

> to figure out what script triggers that. (probably wrong encoding?) it
switches 
> back at the end of the booting process. 

This one is really a pain in the ass. I tried hard to fix it a while back
(check #84 above) without any success. You could try running with "interactive"
on the grub prompt, I guess it would make it easier to determine where the
problem is.


(In reply to comment #259)
> This spec file fixes the x86_64 build issues and the rpath issues.

Is this really a good idea? Hardcoding stuff in our spec file because they're
hardcoded upstreams?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.