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 ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxx 2007-01-24 00:24 EST ------- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GPL) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: e6afeeb371c5d7d8c8d3c6dc379dd11a ecryptfs-utils-9.tar.bz2 e6afeeb371c5d7d8c8d3c6dc379dd11a ecryptfs-utils-9.tar.bz2.1 bbd72d4036e2b0faf7a8a4ca204fed274c6849cd ecryptfs-utils-9.tar.bz2 bbd72d4036e2b0faf7a8a4ca204fed274c6849cd ecryptfs-utils-9.tar.bz2.1 OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun OK - .so files in -devel subpackage. See below - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. See below - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs See below - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. See below - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version Issues: 1. Might include the following as %doc files: AUTHORS NEWS THANKS 2. The devel subpackage should have: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} You have currently => and just version. 3. rpmlint says: E: ecryptfs-utils binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/ecryptfsd ['/usr/ lib64'] E: ecryptfs-utils binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/ecryptfs-manager ['/ usr/lib64'] E: ecryptfs-utils binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /sbin/mount.ecryptfs ['/usr/ lib64'] See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head- a1dfb5f46bf4098841e31a75d833e6e1b3e72544 4. The keyutils-libs Requires doesn't seem needed. keyutils pulls it in, and thats already required. 5. Should add the dist tag, as discussed in previous comments. A few other notes, not related to packaging: - http://ecryptfs.sourceforge.net/README seems to be out of date? - I tried the example in the README, doing: mkdir /root/crypt /mnt/crypt; mount -t ecryptfs /root/crypt /mnt/crypt It prompts me for a passphrase, etc, but then I don't see the dir mounted and writing files just appears to write to the dirs, am I missing a step? I see reports of someone perhaps having the same issue on a x86_64 box, which I am also using... Installing the i386 version gets me: Error mounting ecryptfs - I'm not sure what the README means by a 'layover mount', can you expand? - If it would help you are welcome to use my x86_64 test box to track down x86_64 issues. -- 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