[Bug 187846] Review Request: pam_keyring
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Jun 3 01:12:19 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: pam_keyring
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187846
bugzilla at redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
QAContact|fedora-extras- |fedora-package-
|list at redhat.com |review at redhat.com
tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink at leemhuis.info |tibbs at math.uh.edu
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779
nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2006-06-02 21:04 EST -------
A quick look; builds on in mock on x86_64, development. rpmlint says:
E: pam_keyring zero-length /usr/share/doc/pam_keyring-0.0.7/FAQ
W: pam_keyring non-standard-dir-in-usr libexec
FAQ shouldn't be shipped.
The libexec warning is bogus.
This looks good enough that I might as well do a full review. In fact, since
the only issue is the empty FAQ I'll go ahead and approve this and you can fix
it when you check in.
Review:
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.
* source files match upstream:
b50ff42708c0f49bc10d6cd16d182b39 pam_keyring-0.0.7.tar.gz
b50ff42708c0f49bc10d6cd16d182b39 pam_keyring-0.0.7.tar.gz-srpm
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
X rpmlint has one valid complaint
* final provides and requires are sane:
pam_keyring.so()(64bit)
pam_keyring = 0.0.7-1
-
gnome-keyring >= 0.4.8
gnome-session >= 2.10.0
libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgnome-keyring.so.0()(64bit)
pam >= 0.99.3
pam_keyring.so()(64bit)
* shared libraries are present but internal to pam
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* 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.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app.
APPROVED; just don't package the empty FAQ file.
--
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