Uploaded image for project: 'Bigtop'
  1. Bigtop
  2. BIGTOP-990

/usr/lib/bigtop-utils/ should be owned by bigtop-utils package

    Details

    • Type: Bug
    • Status: Closed
    • Priority: Major
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Affects Version/s: 0.6.0
    • Fix Version/s: 0.7.0
    • Component/s: rpm
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      As you would notice in the

      {%files}

      section of bigtop-utils' spec file:
      https://github.com/apache/bigtop/blob/master/bigtop-packages/src/rpm/bigtop-utils/SPECS/bigtop-utils.spec#L73

      It doesn't list the /usr/lib/bigtop-utils directory there which means that the directory is not owned by any package. We should fix that and make it owned by bigtop-utils package.

        Activity

        Hide
        mgrover Mark Grover added a comment -

        Committed!

        Show
        mgrover Mark Grover added a comment - Committed!
        Hide
        rvs Roman Shaposhnik added a comment -

        +1. Since Bigtop 0.6.0 went out already, lets fix this for 0.7.0

        Show
        rvs Roman Shaposhnik added a comment - +1. Since Bigtop 0.6.0 went out already, lets fix this for 0.7.0
        Hide
        plinnell Peter Linnell added a comment -

        +1 Looks sane and safe for the final.

        Show
        plinnell Peter Linnell added a comment - +1 Looks sane and safe for the final.
        Hide
        mackrorysd Sean Mackrory added a comment -

        +1 (non-committer)

        Show
        mackrorysd Sean Mackrory added a comment - +1 (non-committer)
        Hide
        mgrover Mark Grover added a comment -

        I personally think this doesn't warrant cutting of another RC (FWIW, the same bug is present in older Bigtop releases as well) on its own but if we end up doing one for other reasons, then I'd be with you on this (to include it in 0.6).

        Show
        mgrover Mark Grover added a comment - I personally think this doesn't warrant cutting of another RC (FWIW, the same bug is present in older Bigtop releases as well) on its own but if we end up doing one for other reasons, then I'd be with you on this (to include it in 0.6).
        Hide
        cos Konstantin Boudnik added a comment -

        I'd argue to include this into 0.6 actually.

        Show
        cos Konstantin Boudnik added a comment - I'd argue to include this into 0.6 actually.

          People

          • Assignee:
            mgrover Mark Grover
            Reporter:
            mgrover Mark Grover
          • Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            5 Start watching this issue

            Dates

            • Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved:

              Development