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@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- QAContact|fedora-extras- |fedora-package- |list@xxxxxxxxxx |review@xxxxxxxxxx tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review