[Bug 247115] Review Request: ldapvi - ldapvi is an interactive LDAP client

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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: ldapvi - ldapvi is an interactive LDAP client


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247115





------- Additional Comments From ghenry at suretecsystems.com  2007-07-05 14:53 EST -------
(In reply to comment #1)
> This builds fine for me; rpmlint only says:
>   W: ldapvi summary-not-capitalized ldapvi is an interactive LDAP client
> Generally you shouldn't include the name of the package in the summary; using
> just "An interactive LDAP client" would fix two issues at once.

Will do.

> 
> I thoughht this would be just the ticket, but unfortunately it doesn't seem to
> support kerberos-based auth.  It seems to work well enough doing an anonymous
> bind, but of course I can't write any changes.

It supports SASL, which in turn can do GSSAPI. Any thing ldapsearch/ldapadd can
do, ldapvi can do I presume.

> 
> Since there's just the minor issue of the summary, I'll go ahead and approve
> this and you can fix it when you check in.
> 
> Review:
> * source files match upstream:
>    6f62e92d20ff2ac0d06125024a914b8622e5b8a0a0c2d390bf3e7990cbd2e153  
>    ldapvi-1.7.tar.gz
> * package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
> * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
> X summary generally should not contain the name of the package.
> * description is OK.
> * dist tag is present.
> * build root is OK.
> * license field matches the actual license.
> * license is open source-compatible.
> * license text included in package.
> * latest version is being packaged.
> * BuildRequires are proper.
> * compiler flags are appropriate.
> * %clean is present.
> * package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
> * package installs properly
> * debuginfo package looks complete.
> * rpmlint would be silent if Summary: were fixed as above.
> * final provides and requires are sane:
>    ldapvi = 1.7-1.fc8
>   =
>    libcrypto.so.6()(64bit)
>    libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
>    liblber-2.3.so.0()(64bit)
>    libldap-2.3.so.0()(64bit)
>    libncurses.so.5()(64bit)
>    libpopt.so.0()(64bit)
>    libreadline.so.5()(64bit)
>    libssl.so.6()(64bit)
>    libtinfo.so.5()(64bit)
>    libz.so.1()(64bit)
> * %check is not present; no test suite upstream.  Things seem to work well 
>    enough under manual testing.
> * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
> * 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.
> * no headers.
> * no pkgconfig files.
> * no static libraries.
> * no libtool .la files.
> 
> APPROVED, just fix up the summary.

Thanks.



-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.