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_script https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197048 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-06-28 11:06 EST ------- This fails to build in mock: + make gcc -Wall -pedantic -fPIC -shared -o pam_script.so pam_script.c pam_script.c:23:34: error: security/_pam_macros.h: No such file or directory pam_script.c:24:34: error: security/pam_modules.h: No such file or directory pam_script.c:48: error: expected ')' before '*' token pam_script.c:83: error: expected ')' before '*' token pam_script.c:240: error: expected '=', ',', ';', 'asm' or '__attribute__' before 'int' pam_script.c:249: error: expected '=', ',', ';', 'asm' or '__attribute__' before 'int' pam_script.c:259: error: expected '=', ',', ';', 'asm' or '__attribute__' before 'int' pam_script.c:296: error: expected '=', ',', ';', 'asm' or '__attribute__' before 'int' make: *** [pam_script.so] Errror 1 Adding BuildRequires: pam-devel fixes this up; rpmlint is happy with the resulting package. I'll assume the BR: is there for the purposes of this review. The compiler isn't called with the appropriate flags. You need to pass in ${optflags} somehow. This also causes the -debuginfo package to be broken. * package meets naming and packaging guidelines (pam modules use an underscore). * 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. * license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream. * source files match upstream: 9f1031154718b79d6ee79c9c5231b1d4 pam-script-0.1.7.tar.gz * latest version is being packaged. X BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64) (after adding BR: pam-devel) * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: pam_script.so()(64bit) pam_script = 0.1.7-1.fc6 = (empty) * shared libraries are present, internal to pam. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates (doesn't own /lib/security, but I think pam is a requirement for any running system) * 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. -- 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