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: dirmngr: Client for Managing/Downloading CRLs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=171289 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|gdk@xxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-06-25 18:42 EST ------- Builds in mock; rpmlint has this to day: E: dirmngr zero-length /etc/dirmngr/ldapservers.conf Is is possible to add a comment or something to this file indicating what its purpose is? W: dirmngr file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/dirmngr.info.gz Just a few non-ascii charaters; a run through iconv should fix it up. W: dirmngr log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/dirmngr.log You'll want to make sure these get rotated properly. W: dirmngr non-standard-dir-in-usr libexec This seems OK given the currently accepted uses of /usr/libexec. Did you ever decide what do to about running this as a daemon? You don't seem to package the COPYING file. Note that 0.9.4 is out. Care to make an update that fixes the above issues? Review: * 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. X license is open source-compatible. License text included in tarball but not in package. * source files match upstream: 54df92f0548918af89c8c7dcca2d1911 dirmngr-0.9.3.tar.bz2 X latest version is not being packaged (0.9.4 is out) * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (x86_64, development). X rpmlint has valid complaints * final provides and requires are sane: config(dirmngr) = 0.9.3-1.fc6 dirmngr = 0.9.3-1.fc6 = /bin/sh /sbin/install-info config(dirmngr) = 0.9.3-1.fc6 libgcrypt.so.11()(64bit) libgcrypt.so.11(GCRYPT_1.2)(64bit) libgpg-error.so.0()(64bit) libksba.so.8()(64bit) libksba.so.8(KSBA_0.9)(64bit) liblber-2.3.so.0()(64bit) libldap-2.3.so.0()(64bit) libpth.so.20()(64bit) * no shared libraries are present. * 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 not present; no test suite upstream. There are some tests, but they don't seem to be anything that runs in an automatic fashoin. * scriptlets present and OK (install-info) * 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. -- 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