[Bug 207725] Review Request: sshfp - Generate SSHFP DNS records from knownhosts files or ssh-keyscan

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Sep 30 17:22:15 UTC 2006


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: sshfp - Generate SSHFP DNS records from knownhosts files or ssh-keyscan


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207725


tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|163778                      |163779
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2006-09-30 13:22 EST -------
Sorry for taking so long to respond.

The only thing I have to say now is that you need to modify %description to
match the current non-ssh_config-modifying behavior of the package.  But you can
do that when you check it in.

Now I just need to figure out how to get my DNS configured to hand out these keys.

* source files match upstream:
   7bceb2240c34cb5929d931cd248e9e35  sshfp-1.1.0.tar.gz
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper (none)
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   sshfp = 1.1.0-1.fc6
  =
   /usr/bin/python
   openssh-clients >= 4
   python-dns
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.

APPROVED

-- 
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