Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 --- Comment #1 from _pjp_ <pj.pandit(a)yahoo.co.in&gt; 2009-01-20 01:26:57 EDT --- Daemontools package is open for review at: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480727 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 Itamar Reis Peixoto <itamar(a)ispbrasil.com.br&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |480727 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 Ralf Corsepius <rc040203(a)freenet.de&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |182235 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 --- Comment #4 from _pjp_ <pj.pandit(a)yahoo.co.in&gt; 2009-01-20 04:26:06 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) Sure, I'll put that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 Itamar Reis Peixoto <itamar(a)ispbrasil.com.br&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |itamar(a)ispbrasil.com.br --- Comment #5 from Itamar Reis Peixoto <itamar(a)ispbrasil.com.br&gt; 2009-02-06 06:30:55 EDT --- Ralf you can remove FE-LEGAL http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2007-November/msg00023.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 Mark Johnson <johnsonm(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |johnsonm(a)gmail.com --- Comment #7 from Mark Johnson <johnsonm(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-03-02 17:09:30 EDT --- Here is a maintained fork of djbdns (and daemontools and ucspi-tcp): http://sourceforge.net/projects/zinq DISCLAIMER: I'm the maintainer / originator of said fork. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 --- Comment #9 from Itamar Reis Peixoto <itamar(a)ispbrasil.com.br&gt; 2009-03-05 06:52:16 EDT --- *** Bug 488681 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 --- Comment #11 from _pjp_ <pj.pandit(a)yahoo.co.in&gt; 2009-03-05 07:37:00 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10) Oh, okay. Here are the links to the new updated soruce and rpms for review. SPEC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/djbdns.spec SORC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/djbdns-1.05.1.tar.gz SRPM: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/djbdns-1.05.1-1.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 --- Comment #13 from Mark Johnson <johnsonm(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-03-05 12:04:30 EDT --- (In reply to comment #12) Coherent grammer: Is that a mistake or do you intend the changes you have made for this package to be covered by the GPL? If the latter, should the license for the whole package really be listed as GPL when the original source is Public Domain? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 --- Comment #15 from Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com&gt; 2009-03-05 13:43:35 EDT --- (In reply to comment #14) Absolutely. Anyone can pick up public domain software and do _whatever_ they want to it. Relicense it, make it proprietary, turn it into a play, wear it as a hat, anything. While it might be good to mention that it is based on the Public Domain djbdns, there is no requirement that he do this. Also, there is no longer a copyright notice, because when DJB put it into the Public Domain, he officially abandoned copyright on the work. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 --- Comment #17 from Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com&gt; 2009-03-05 15:34:45 EDT --- The original public domain work is Public Domain. A modified, or derived work, can be under any license that the new author of the work wants. Since Public Domain is not a license, but the absence of a license (or if it helps you wrap your brain around it, the granting of all possible rights), it doesn't matter. My comments reflected upon an entirely Public Domain work, because we need to track that in the spec file somehow. If someone came along and made changes to a public domain work under GPLv2+, it would be fine to say: License: GPLv2+ because that is in every way functionally identical to: License: GPLv2+ and Public Domain As to removing DJB's copyright notice, DJB did that. It would be nice to reference his message in which he took that action. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 --- Comment #19 from _pjp_ <pj.pandit(a)yahoo.co.in&gt; 2009-03-05 23:52:40 EDT --- Hello guys, Boy...wow, I was kind of expecting all this fuss over public-domain & licensing to happen when I included the COPYING file in the source. It feels like a Deja-vu now. :) Anyway, Mark, I think it's okay to take a public domain soruce, change it and release it as licensed version. If I'm not wrong, I guess openDNS is based on `dnscache'. But still if you want me to put that link in the README, I'll do that. Well that seems less likely, for one, the source is distributed from my page, and second the README quotes me says "I'm pleased to release this *new* version..." along with my email address. Ah, that should be okay; that's why the `+' sign is there. Thank you! PS: I'm kind of more looking forward to some technical review, folks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 --- Comment #21 from Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com&gt; 2009-03-06 08:42:47 EDT --- (In reply to comment #18) This is generally how the GPL works. If you take file A, which is under Public Domain (all rights granted to everyone) and file B, which is under some version of the GPL, and you compile them together to generate binary C, binary C is under the terms of the GPL, because the GPL is by far the more restrictive license, and the terms of file A are all being met by it. The same is true if file A is under a permissive license, such as MIT or BSD, because the GPL's coverage meets those terms. This is precisely why the FSF (and Fedora) tracks GPL compatiblity on other licenses. With some license pairings, this can get even trickier, because it may be possible for file A and file B to have licenses which have differing grants and restrictions, which, while neither prevents the other from being honored, results in the need to honor the terms of both A and B simultaneously (technically, we're always doing this, but when one covers both, we simplify it to one). In those cases, we note it in the spec file with a: License: Foo and Bar style notation. We also use that notation in cases like this: File A is MIT. It is compiled by itself into a standalone binary. File B, C, D, E, and F are all GPL. They get compiled together into a standalone binary. Both binaries end up in the same package. In this case, the spec License tag would be "MIT and GPL". No, but I'm pretty sure the latest release for all of his code drops took out the copyright statement. He has also issued blanket DJB clearly understands US Public Domain law, as can be seen here: http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html He writes: "The normal way to abandon a copyright is to make a clear written dedication of the work to the public domain." He then does exactly this, here: http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html "What are the distribution terms for djbdns? 2007.12.28: I hereby place the djbdns package (in particular, djbdns-1.05.tar.gz, with MD5 checksum 3147c5cd56832aa3b41955c7a51cbeb2) into the public domain. The package is no longer copyrighted." Thus, there is no need to retain his copyright statement, as it clearly no longer applies. To re-add it would be incorrect and misleading. Given that he has abandoned copyright entirely, he no longer has any say in what anyone does with it. No, but upstream should correct that mistake. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 --- Comment #23 from Mark Johnson <johnsonm(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-03-06 11:17:46 EDT --- (In reply to comment #19) I don't think that "those other guys did it so it must be okay" is much of a justification. In any event, I'm just giving you advice. I've got zip for authority here. Consider it, ignore it, your call. Unfortunately, I'm afraid to examine your code closely for fear of being accused of being a GPL violator later on down the road. I will say that over the years, the djbdns community has identified and fixed a few issues. Such as the ones that hit the front page of Slashdot the other day. You might wish to take a look at those. While you may have no legal obligation to credit the originators of any of those fixes, personally, I'd consider it very rude not to do so. There is more to djbdns that dnscache. Somebody who wishes to use dnscache might not be interested in tinydns/axfrdns and vice versa (not to mention pickdns and walldns). I think Debian does package it all up in one bundle, but I don't know if it's all turned on by default when the package is installed. In the past, some RPM distributors have made separate packages for each djbdns component. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 --- Comment #25 from _pjp_ <pj.pandit(a)yahoo.co.in&gt; 2009-03-06 12:27:47 EDT --- Hey Mark, hi It's done, please see the latest files. Sure, may be I'll put up a web-page to this effect in couple of days, guess that should be okay. Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 Rick Moen <rick(a)linuxmafia.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rick(a)linuxmafia.com --- Comment #27 from Rick Moen <rick(a)linuxmafia.com&gt; 2009-03-06 17:22:15 EDT --- My thanks to Prasad for working on this. 1. Did I miss a trick during software build, or does Prasad's tarball Makefile so far build/install only dnscache, and not the six other binaries? (I've not looked closely; I just did ./configure; make; make install.) 2. From a very quick glance, I think Prasad has not yet applied quite a number of patches often recommended to fix djbdns and bring it up to current standards -- some of those fixing significant security issues. I have a list at http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Network_Other/dns-servers.html#djbdns-patches , and link to Jonathan de Boyne Pollard's and tinydns.org's separate pages. 3. It would be good if you could work with Mark Johnson (zinq-djbdns) and Gerrit Pape (Debian djbdns/dbndns). Although Dan is finally talking about an 1.06 version solely to fix the recent AXFR security problem, it seems highly likely that he'll ignore most other fixes, notably those he is known to dislike (e.g., FHS, GNU make-tools, system headers, manpages, IPv6, default dependency on ucspi-tcp and daemontools). So, a robust upstream elsewhere is crucial. 4. I applaud the measures Prasad is taking and says he'll take to make sure Dan's role remains properly credited and that people can find the non-copylefted upstream source if they want it. I second Mark Johnson in strongly suggesting care to credit other prior contributors, irrespective of obligation. 5. While wishing to avoid licence discussion here, I'll point out that "public domain" dedications have known legal problems albeit Dan's is probably good enough in context. My analysis: http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Licensing_and_Law/public-domain.html Perhaps Red Hat Legal should be consulted, though. (Whether his purporting to do that actually has the intended legal effect is subject to some doubt. Tom, yes, Dan does "understand" the portion of the law that he wants to acknowledge, but he's selective in what he acknowledges, and argues rather illogically with genuine experts like Larry Rosen when they say things he finds convenient.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 --- Comment #29 from Rick Moen <rick(a)linuxmafia.com&gt; 2009-03-06 17:45:13 EDT --- Thanks for that, Tom. Good idea. And yes, I'd be delighted to hear, by e-mail, your and Red Hat Legal's take on either PD dedications generally, or just on Dan's. (As a practical matter, I do think it very likely, in any event, that judges would implement Dan's approximate intention in some manner, if not the way he intended. And I think it vanishingly likely to ever be litigated, anyway.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 Dan Peterson <dpiddy(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dpiddy(a)gmail.com --- Comment #31 from Dan Peterson <dpiddy(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-03-06 22:58:47 EDT --- Just thought I'd add my feeling that if significant enough changes are being made to warrant a new version number beyond what's officially released as "djbdns" AND you want to apply a license to it you might seriously consider changing the name of your incarnation to something else. Especially since a new release of djbdns from the real djbdns author is forthcoming. I know it's public domain and pretty much anything goes but I think it would be a nice courtesy. Plus, people who use the "real" djbdns would appreciate the lack of confusion. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 --- Comment #33 from _pjp_ <pj.pandit(a)yahoo.co.in&gt; 2009-03-09 02:07:16 EDT --- Hello Rick, First of all thanks a million for your comments, I deeply appreciate it. (In reply to comment #27) Well no, you didn't miss any steps. It's just that, so far I've only been able to change dnscacahe. Though the work is in good progress for others, and soon I'll include them as well. Thanks Rick! That's the kind of inputs I'm looking for. I'll see to it that all those patches are applied, with due credits to the original authors. Thanks so much. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 --- Comment #35 from _pjp_ <pj.pandit(a)yahoo.co.in&gt; 2009-03-23 05:03:24 EDT --- Hello all, It's a pleasure to announce the second release of `djbdns' I've been working on. Please have a look at: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns And for package review SPEC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/djbdns.spec SORC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/djbdns-1.05.2.tar.gz SRPM: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/djbdns-1.05.2-1.fc10.src.rpm Thank you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 --- Comment #36 from _pjp_ <pj.pandit(a)yahoo.co.in&gt; 2009-08-17 06:14:55 EDT --- Hi, I'm *happy* to announce the new release of djbdns-1.05.3. Please take a look at: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns And for package review SPEC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/djbdns.spec SORC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/djbdns-1.05.3.tar.gz SRPM: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/djbdns-1.05.3-1.fc10.src.rpm Thank you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 Satya Komaragiri <skomarag(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |skomarag(a)redhat.com --- Comment #38 from Satya Komaragiri <skomarag(a)redhat.com&gt; 2009-08-18 10:04:03 EDT --- Unofficial review: [?] The spec file from spec link does not match spec file provided in srpm ?? [?] Naming guideline: fine, but as you have branched an existing project and changed it lot, it needs to be renamed. [x] Builds successfully http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1611918 [x] License: Checked [x] rpmlint bash-4.0$ rpmlint djbdns-1.05.3-1.fc11.i586.rpm djbdns.i586: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/djbdns/tinydns.conf djbdns.i586: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/djbdns/servers/@ djbdns.i586: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/djbdns/dnscache.conf Two conf files need to have noreplace flag in %files section like %config(noreplace) /etc/your_config_file_here djbdns.i586: E: zero-length /etc/djbdns/ip/127.0.0.1 [?] Looks like this place will be populated by more empty files for some functionality, but placing all of them in /etc/ does not make sense. djbdns.i586: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/djbdns/ip/127.0.0.1 djbdns.i586: W: dangerous-command-in-%post ln djbdns.i586: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings. bash-4.0$ du -sh djbdns-debuginfo-1.05.3-1.fc11.i586.rpm 436K djbdns-debuginfo-1.05.3-1.fc11.i586.rpm file djbdns-1.05.3-1.fc11.i586/etc/djbdns/servers/@ lists root dns but name '@' should be changed to something meaningful. The package has too many servers and client side tools. It would make more sense to package them as subpackages so that anyone who say wants to run tinydns does not have to download whole djbdns tools in a single package. [?] Use %preun if [ $1 -eq 0 ] ; then /sbin/chkconfig --del %{name} fi in preun section and no need to create sym link. Simply install djbdns in /etc/init.d/ in %install section e.g mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/init.d/ mv $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_bindir}/djbns / $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/init.d/ and include file in %files section [?] The package does not own all directories e.g /etc/djbdns, /etc/djbdns/ip, /etc/djbdns/servers/ bash-4.0$ rpmls djbdns-1.05.3-1.fc11.i586.rpm -rw-r--r-- /etc/djbdns/dnscache.conf -rw-r--r-- /etc/djbdns/ip/127.0.0.1 -rw-r--r-- /etc/djbdns/servers/@ -rw-r--r-- /etc/djbdns/tinydns.conf -------------------------------------------------- needs some fix in %files section List: [?] rpmlint done check above [x] Package Naming Guidelines: OKay -But it is better to rename it. [x] Basepackage name matches spec name [?] License: Fine Suggestion: Add license block at top in all source files. It seems after re-licensing you have just updated license blocks in files which you have modified. Other files should also get this block. [x] License file in spec matches actual licenses mentioned in wiki [?] Does not look like you are using RPM_OPT_FLAGS flags for compilation. [x] spec file written in American English [x] Legible [x] Builds on ppc, ppc64, i586, x86_64 [?] Does not own all directories [x] Extra Suggestions (unless you want this package to be imported into EPEL): 1. You can remove rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT from %install section - Not required any more 2. You can also remove BuildRoot ?: Needs attention x: OKay -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 --- Comment #40 from _pjp_ <pj.pandit(a)yahoo.co.in&gt; 2009-08-19 00:54:47 EDT --- (In reply to comment #39) Thank you so much Pavel; I'll take a look at the srpm and do the necessary. Thank you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 --- Comment #42 from Dan Peterson <dpiddy(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-08-19 09:41:49 EDT --- And why not the name change? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 Itamar Reis Peixoto <itamar(a)ispbrasil.com.br&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |itamar(a)ispbrasil.com.br Flag| |fedora-review?, | |needinfo?(pj.pandit(a)yahoo.c | |o.in) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 --- Comment #45 from Tom Moertel <tom(a)moertel.com&gt; 2009-08-22 14:41:29 EDT --- I have inspected the proposed packaging of djbdns and am delighted that somebody has decided to get it into Fedora. To help make the package better, I have a few suggestions. First, as the package does not use DJB's daemontools to manage the services it provides, it requires initscripts for that purpose. Only one initscript is included in the package, however, and it is named "djbdns", making unclear which of the services it controls (it's dnscache). The initscript for tinydns, for example, is missing. Recommendation: include one initscript per service and make the names of the initscripts match the services they control. Second, the package is missing some important parts of djbdns -- axfdns, walldns, and rbldns, for example. While these parts are probably used less often than dnscache or tinydns, they are well established within DJB's bundle, and most people will expect them to be included in any package calling itself "djbdns". Recommendation: include the missing pieces. Third, I must agree with Satya Komaragiri about the need for subpackages. It's very common to need only one part of djbdns for any particular install, either dnscache (for a site needing a local, recursive DNS cache), tinydns (for a site needing a content DNS server to publish its public records), or the tools (for administration and debugging). To place all of these in one package will contribute clutter to the typical install. (This problem wasn't so bad in DJB's bundle because it didn't use initscripts, but we do, and installing 5 initscripts when the typical sysadmin will need only 1 seems excessive.) Recommendation: split the package into logical subpackages, following Pavel Lisý's scheme, which makes a lot of sense from an administrator's point of view (and ought to be immediately understandable to anyone familiar with how to deploy from DJB's bundle). Fourth, DJB's bundle relied upon the multilog program from daemontools to handle logging, whereas our proposed package writes to log files directly. But multilog did more than just write to files; it also inserted timestamps, which our logs lack. Timestamps are essential in system logs, so we must put them back in somehow. Maybe we could use syslog or bring back multilog. Recommendation: Restore the timestamps in logs. This package is looking great. I think it's just a few tweaks away from being both a good Fedora package and a faithful representation of everything that made DJB's bundle great. Keep up the good work! Cheers, Tom -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 Bruno Wolff III <bruno(a)wolff.to&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bruno(a)wolff.to --- Comment #47 from Bruno Wolff III <bruno(a)wolff.to&gt; 2009-08-25 10:45:28 EDT --- Note that axfrdns is really desired if you are using tinydns, as it handles fallback to tcp. Multilog also handles rotating the logfiles. It also handles a full disk in a way that DJB thought reasonable, though not everyone may want it to work that way. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 Rakesh Pandit <rpandit(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED CC| |rpandit(a)redhat.com Resolution| |DEFERRED --- Comment #49 from Rakesh Pandit <rpandit(a)redhat.com&gt; 2009-12-09 05:51:09 EDT --- No comments for long. Waiting for upstream work to complete. Will close it for now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 pjp <pj.pandit(a)yahoo.co.in&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|DEFERRED | AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |pj.pandit(a)yahoo.co.in Keywords| |Reopened -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 pjp <pj.pandit(a)yahoo.co.in&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL|http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdn |http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdn |s/djbdns-1.05.3.tar.gz |s/ndjbdns-1.05.4.tar.gz Summary|Review Request: djbdns - A |Review Request: ndjbdns - |Domain Name System by D. J. |New djbdns, usable djbdns. |Bernstein | --- Comment #51 from pjp <pj.pandit(a)yahoo.co.in&gt; 2011-07-26 14:21:10 EDT --- Hi, I've changed the project name to ndjbdns: New djbdns. Also, fixed few packaging errors. Please have a look at SPEC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/ndjbdns.spec SRPM: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/ndjbdns-1.05.4-3.fc14.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3232097 Thank you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 --- Comment #52 from pjp <pj.pandit(a)yahoo.co.in&gt; 2012-02-24 11:27:06 EST --- Hi, Please have a look at these new files which install the systemd(1) service unit files. SPEC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/ndjbdns.spec SRPM: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/ndjbdns-1.05.4-4.fc16.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3815910 Thank you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 pjp <pj.pandit(a)yahoo.co.in&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEW -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 --- Comment #54 from pjp <pj.pandit(a)yahoo.co.in&gt; 2012-02-28 08:18:53 EST --- Hi, I've made the changes, please see: SPEC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/ndjbdns.spec SRPM: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/ndjbdns-1.05.4-5.fc16.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3827635 Thanks you! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 --- Comment #56 from pjp <pj.pandit(a)yahoo.co.in&gt; 2012-03-01 15:50:25 EST --- (In reply to comment #55) Yep done. Please see SPEC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/ndjbdns.spec SRPM: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/ndjbdns-1.05.4-6.fc16.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3844111 Thanks so much! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 --- Comment #58 from pjp <pj.pandit(a)yahoo.co.in&gt; 2012-03-10 15:51:35 EST --- (In reply to comment #57) Yep, removed. In the Makefile it may not fit, for not all systems have systemd(1) support. cdb is not installed separately. It'll be some work + time to separate it from the main source. I'll urge you to approve the package while I continue work towards linking cdb dynamically. I've added all the manuals except for dnstracesort(1). It is a small shell script to sort the output of dnstrace(1) command. I've documented it in the manual of dnstrace(1) command. Please see: SPEC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/ndjbdns.spec SRPM: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/ndjbdns-1.05.4-7.fc16.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3878658 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 Rahul Sundaram <metherid(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #59 from Rahul Sundaram <metherid(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-03-11 03:53:16 EDT --- APPROVED There are several other code improvements suggested in this review that you should look at but they aren't blockers to getting this in the repository. So I am approving this and recommend that you go through the history of this review and apply patches and changes from branches/forks of djbdns as applicable. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 --- Comment #61 from pjp <pj.pandit(a)yahoo.co.in&gt; 2012-03-11 12:26:07 EDT --- (In reply to comment #59) Yes, I'll do that. Once again, thanks a lot! :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 --- Comment #63 from Rahul Sundaram <metherid(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-03-11 13:47:28 EDT --- You are welcome. Couple of quick notes before you import: * List the binaries individually rather than use a wildcard * If you are creating log files in /var/log by default, you should run logrotate on them. See other spec files for examples. say httpd.spec * You might want to change the upstream url to ndjbdns as well to avoid any confusion with the original source. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 --- Comment #65 from Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-03-12 07:59:07 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). Added f17. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 --- Comment #66 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; 2012-03-15 07:45:07 EDT --- ndjbdns-1.05.4-9.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ndjbdns-1.05.4-9.fc16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 --- Comment #68 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; 2012-03-15 07:45:56 EDT --- ndjbdns-1.05.4-9.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ndjbdns-1.05.4-9.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |ndjbdns-1.05.4-9.fc15 Resolution| |ERRATA Last Closed|2009-12-09 05:51:09 |2012-03-25 23:58:00 --- Comment #70 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; 2012-03-25 23:58:00 EDT --- ndjbdns-1.05.4-9.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|ndjbdns-1.05.4-9.fc15 |ndjbdns-1.05.4-9.fc16 --- Comment #72 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; 2012-03-26 13:57:33 EDT --- ndjbdns-1.05.4-9.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|ndjbdns-1.05.4-9.fc16 |ndjbdns-1.05.4-9.fc17 --- Comment #74 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; 2012-04-11 23:11:13 EDT --- ndjbdns-1.05.4-9.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.