[Bug 226134] Merge Review: mdadm

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Apr 11 15:30:41 UTC 2007


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

Summary: Merge Review: mdadm


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226134


dledford at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEEDINFO                    |ASSIGNED
               Flag|needinfo?(dledford at redhat.co|
                   |m)                          |




------- Additional Comments From dledford at redhat.com  2007-04-11 11:30 EST -------
BuildRoot fixed
Missing SMP flags fixed
/sbin != %{_sbindir}, and this package *really* needs to be in /sbin, not /usr/sbin
Cleaning of buildroot done
The make during build was due to building things out of order and the Makefile
was rebuilding mdadm because the object files were newer than the mdadm binary.
 Make mdadm the last thing to be built during %build solves the issue.
Timestamps for man pages and mdmonitor fixed, for all the others they are done
as part of the %doc macro, so if that gets them wrong then there's not much to
do (although viewing the output shows %doc is using -p, so I suspect their
timestamps are actually correct).
Dependencies done.
mdadm is a reasonable exception to the default off policy.  It exits immediately
if there is nothing for it to monitor, and if there is something for it to
monitor, it's responsible for notifying the admin of failure events in their
hardware that might compromise their raid subsystem integrity.
Announce files dropped.
Changelog fixed
As for sendmail, don't all the various MTA alternatives that provide smtpdaemon
also provide a sendmail compatibility link   via alternatives?

-- 
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.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list