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-%%7Bversion%7D.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@lists.fedoraproject.org - 3.3.8-3 -- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_11_Mass_Rebuild +* Fri Feb 27 2009 Peter Vrabec pvrabec@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
Rakesh Pandit wrote:
+Source3: GeoIP.tar.gz +Source4: GeoLiteCity.dat.gz +Source5: GeoIPASNum.dat.gz
Why can't the files from the geoip package be used instead of shipping them with this package?
Kevin Kofler
2009/3/4 Kevin Kofler wrote:
Rakesh Pandit wrote:
Peter Vrabec wrote:
+Source3: GeoIP.tar.gz +Source4: GeoLiteCity.dat.gz +Source5: GeoIPASNum.dat.gz
Why can't the files from the geoip package be used instead of shipping them with this package?
Yeah that is another issue. GeoIP package should be used.
-- Regards, Rakesh Pandit
On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 06:19:21 +0530, Rakesh wrote:
2009/3/4 Kevin Kofler wrote:
Rakesh Pandit wrote:
Peter Vrabec wrote:
+Source3: GeoIP.tar.gz +Source4: GeoLiteCity.dat.gz +Source5: GeoIPASNum.dat.gz
Why can't the files from the geoip package be used instead of shipping them with this package?
Yeah that is another issue. GeoIP package should be used.
This has been found by the conflicts checker, too: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/488419
2009/3/4 Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 06:19:21 +0530, Rakesh wrote:
2009/3/4 Kevin Kofler wrote:
Rakesh Pandit wrote:
Peter Vrabec wrote:
+Source3: GeoIP.tar.gz +Source4: GeoLiteCity.dat.gz +Source5: GeoIPASNum.dat.gz
Why can't the files from the geoip package be used instead of shipping them with this package?
Yeah that is another issue. GeoIP package should be used.
This has been found by the conflicts checker, too: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/488419
I would have liked Peter to do it, because he made the upgrade without any discussion. I will fix it (by reverting the upgrade) in a day or two -- in case I receive no response.
Peter on CC.
-- Regards, Rakesh Pandit
-
Kevin Kofler -
Michael Schwendt -
Rakesh Pandit