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: bitlbee
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196591
------- Additional Comments From paul@xtdnet.nl 2006-09-03 19:48 EST ------- I'll happilly take it on for approval. It does not matter much to me who maintains the package.
I didn't use __install or __rm because that's the FE preferred method. It is the same reason I use %configure, and not ./configure, despite bitlbee not supporting all options. make vs %{__make} I am not sure what the official FE policy is, I find both being used.
I noticed my package did not properly install the help files. They are not available. Your package does correctly install the help file.
I am not sure why you Require: xmlto, as it seems to be this is not used at all. I cannot find any calls to xmlto/xmlif in the building, and the xmlto package only provides two binaries, no libraries.
I am not sure I understand your comments on install/make and breaking/not fixing things.
My spec file also contained the post/postun/preun entries, which you should copy. It properly adds the bitlbee service so that programs as 'ntsysv' can enable/disable these (xinetd) services properly. Also add the appropriate Requires (see my spec file).
As for which user to use. I guess neither daemon nor nobody is supposed to own files. We could add a user bitlbee to run as instead? This user would not need Fedora registration, as it is completely irrelevant what uid/gid it would get.
The accept() issue has been reported by me to upstream: http://bugs.bitlbee.org/bitlbee/ticket/200
If you create a new package, I will do some more testing again. I noticed my version did not correctly support any of the proxy settings, but I am not sure if that is a building issue (missing certain libraries?) or whether this is a generic upstream issue.