[Bug 510729] Review Request: pkcs11-helper - A library for using PKCS#11 providers

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510729


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2009-07-11 13:57:11 EDT ---
I wonder if upstream realizes that they're supposed to replace "<ORGANIZATION>"
in their license text with either their names or the name of their
organization.  Without doing that the provision is essentially void and they
might just as well use the 2-clause BSD or the MIT license.

rpmlint says:
  pkcs11-helper.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
   /usr/lib64/libpkcs11-helper.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libz.so.1
I guess the openssl pkgconfig files mandate that everything link against zlib,
even if nothing in zlib is being called.   You can clean this up if you like,
but it's not really a problem.

It looks like /usr/share/aclocal is unowned.  This package needs to depend on
automake if it's going to put files there.

* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:                 
   7849ddd06a4f3996358264ca6f92fbb4980d40aefaf6cda67a05f524476c345f
   pkcs11-helper-1.07.tar.bz2
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.                                                              
* 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 (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint has acceptable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
  pkcs11-helper-1.07-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm
   libpkcs11-helper.so.1()(64bit)
   pkcs11-helper = 1.07-1.fc12
   pkcs11-helper(x86-64) = 1.07-1.fc12
  =
   /sbin/ldconfig
   libcrypto.so.8()(64bit)
   libpkcs11-helper.so.1()(64bit)
   libz.so.1()(64bit)

  pkcs11-helper-devel-1.07-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm
   pkgconfig(libpkcs11-helper-1) = 1.07
   pkcs11-helper-devel = 1.07-1.fc12
   pkcs11-helper-devel(x86-64) = 1.07-1.fc12
  =
   /usr/bin/pkg-config
   libpkcs11-helper.so.1()(64bit)
   openssl-devel
   pkcs11-helper = 1.07-1.fc12
   pkgconfig

* shared libraries are installed:
   ldconfig is called properly.
   unversioned .so link is in the -devel package.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files.
* scriptlets are OK (ldconfig).
* code, not content.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* headers are in the -devel package.
* pkgconfig files are in the -devel package with pkgconfig dependency.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.

The package review process needs reviewers!  If you haven't done any package
reviews recently, please consider doing one.

-- 
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.