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: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 bjohnson@xxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bjohnson@xxxxxxxxxxxx OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From bjohnson@xxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-12-08 05:19 EST ------- I will provide you a review. It is not an official review as you need a sponsor. rpmlint -i ecryptfs-utils-5-0.src.rpm W: ecryptfs-utils summary-not-capitalized eCryptfs mount helper and support libraries Summary doesn't begin with a capital letter. - This can be ignored. W: ecryptfs-utils no-url-tag The URL tag is missing. -add: URL: http://ecryptfs.sourceforge.net W: ecryptfs-utils setup-not-quiet You should use -q to have a quiet extraction of the source tarball, as this generate useless lines of log ( for buildbot, for example ) - add "-q" flag to %setup W: ecryptfs-utils rpm-buildroot-usage %build ./configure --prefix=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr $RPM_BUILD_ROOT should not be touched during %build or %prep stage, as it will break short circuiting. - change to "%{_configure} E: ecryptfs-utils configure-without-libdir-spec A configure script is run without specifying the libdir. configure options must be augmented with something like --libdir=%{_libdir}. E: ecryptfs-utils hardcoded-library-path in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/lib/ecryptfs A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}. - change: /usr/bin to %{_bindir} /usr/lib to %{_libdir} E: ecryptfs-utils hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/libecryptfs.so.0.0.0 A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}. - ditto E: ecryptfs-utils hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/libecryptfs.so.0 A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}. - ditto E: ecryptfs-utils hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/libecryptfs.so A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}. - ditto E: ecryptfs-utils hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/ecryptfs/libecryptfs_pki_passphrase.so A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}. - ditto E: ecryptfs-utils hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/ecryptfs/libecryptfs_pki_openssl.so A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}. - ditto E: ecryptfs-utils no-buildroot-tag The BuildRoot tag isn't used in your spec. It must be used in order to allow building the package as non root on some systems. - add: BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) You might consider installing rpmdevtools and running fedora-newrpmspec to get a nice template spec file to work from. Templated spec files make it faster for reviewers to review. Additionally: make does not use smp flags (see template spec file) make install does not use DESTDIR (see template spec file) %defattr has missing param (see template spec file) Question for submitter: Is ecryptfs already in the kernel? If it's not, this would be a blocker until it is. Once these changes are made, here is the probably output from rpmlint on the binary rpms: rpmlint -i mock-results/ecryptfs-utils-5-0.i386.rpm E: ecryptfs-utils explicit-lib-dependency libgcrypt You must let rpm find the library dependencies by itself. Do not put unneeded explicit Requires: tags. - remove dependency on libgcrypt W: ecryptfs-utils summary-not-capitalized eCryptfs mount helper and support libraries Summary doesn't begin with a capital letter. - ignore W: ecryptfs-utils no-version-in-last-changelog The last changelog entry doesn't contain a version. Please insert the version that is coherent with the version of the package and rebuild it. - please add a version to the changelog entry: * Mon Dec 04 2006 Mike Halcrow <mhalcrow@xxxxxxxxxx> - 5-0 W: ecryptfs-utils unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/ecryptfs/libecryptfs_pki_passphrase.so W: ecryptfs-utils unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/ecryptfs/libecryptfs_pki_openssl.so - I believe the problem here is that they were not chmod a+x so they are not stripped... however, see below first. E: ecryptfs-utils library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib/libecryptfs.so.0.0.0 This package contains a library and provides no %post scriptlet containing a call to ldconfig. - add %post -p /sbin/ldconfig E: ecryptfs-utils library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib/libecryptfs.so.0.0.0 This package contains a library and provides no %postun scriptlet containing a call to ldconfig. - add %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig W: ecryptfs-utils devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libecryptfs.so A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a development package. - If these are development libraries, they should be removed entirely, or put in a -devel package. If they are loadable modules, I believe this can be ignored, but I'll have to look it up. E: ecryptfs-utils zero-length /usr/share/doc/ecryptfs-utils-5/ChangeLog - if changelog is 0 length, remove it from the installation Please fix these issues and repost a new srpm and spec file and I'll continue your review. -- 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