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: mod_auth_ntlm_winbind - NTLM authentication for the Apache web server using winbind daemon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188138 bugzilla@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx OtherBugsDependingO|163776 | nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-06-19 23:55 EST ------- This is an old one, and its really a very simple package. Let me take a look.... The URL: seems to be invalid. rpmlint says: W: mod_auth_ntlm_winbind mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 13, tab: line 1) No big deal; fix it if you like. W: mod_auth_ntlm_winbind-debuginfo filename-too-long-for-joliet mod_auth_ntlm_winbind-debuginfo-0.0.0-0.1.20070129svn713.fc8.x86_64.rpm I'm not sure there's anything you can do about this, nor do I know if this actually causes any problems. It's actually more useful to do "svn export" instead of "svn co" to get an updated source tree, because it doesn't give you a bunch of useless .svn directories. You need a Requires(post): /usr/sbin/usermod (or shadow-utils). Frankly I'm not sure if rpm will guarantee that apache is installed before this package so that the %post scriptlet will actually run, and I think that should be confirmed with an expert first. I don't have any particular issue with this package changing the apache users' group list, however. Review: * source files match upstream. I did an svn export and diffed the directories manually. * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. (The upstream version really is 0.0.0.) * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text not included upstream. * latest version is being packaged (The SVN ID of the upstream repository is 754 as I do this review, but none of the files in this package have been chaned as far as I can tell.) * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint has only acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: config(mod_auth_ntlm_winbind) = 0.0.0-0.1.20070129svn713.fc8 mod_auth_ntlm_winbind.so()(64bit) mod_auth_ntlm_winbind = 0.0.0-0.1.20070129svn713.fc8 = /bin/sh config(mod_auth_ntlm_winbind) = 0.0.0-0.1.20070129svn713.fc8 httpd >= 2.0.40 httpd-mmn = 20051115 samba-common * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. I have no means to test this package. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * 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 static libraries. * no libtool .la files. -- 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