Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: usermode https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226519 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-12-21 22:26 EST ------- I'll take a look at this. Note that I'm happy to provide a patch fixing the issues I know how to fix, or make the changed directly in CVS if you prefer. Does this package have an upstream? If so, a URL tag is needed and if not, the spec needs a comment to that effect: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL No need for the SysVinit conflict; even RH9 has SysVinit 2.84. Similarly, you can drop some of the versions from the dependencies, as we don't support any releases with such old versions of libselinux-devel or pam. Is the WITH_SELINUX stuff still necessary these days? No problem if it's still needed, but it might be a bit cleaner to use the %bcond_without macro. The copying file must be include in the package as %doc. Why does this have a direct dependency on /etc/pam.d/system-auth? It's been provided by the pam package as far back as the oldest machine I can access (RH 7.2). Some rpmlint complaints: usermode.x86_64: E: setuid-binary /usr/sbin/userhelper root 04711 usermode.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/userhelper 04711 usermode.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/userhelper 04711 These are expected usermode.x86_64: W: no-url-tag usermode-gtk.x86_64: W: no-url-tag If there's an upstream web page, it should be indicated usermode.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/security/console.apps/halt usermode.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/security/console.apps/poweroff usermode.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/security/console.apps/reboot I'm not sure what to do with these. If they're really configuration files then they need to nave %noreplace so updates don't overwrite local changes. Checklist: ? don't know if there's an upstream to compare against. * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. X build root is not correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text is in the tarball but not in the package. ? can't tell latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. X rpmlint has valid complaints. ? final provides and requires: usermode-1.93.1-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm config(usermode) = 1.93.1-1.fc9 usermode = 1.93.1-1.fc9 = ? /etc/pam.d/system-auth config(usermode) = 1.93.1-1.fc9 libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libpam.so.0()(64bit) libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_1.0)(64bit) libpam_misc.so.0()(64bit) libpam_misc.so.0(LIBPAM_MISC_1.0)(64bit) libselinux.so.1()(64bit) libuser.so.1()(64bit) pam >= 0.75-37 passwd util-linux usermode-gtk-1.93.1-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm usermode-gtk = 1.93.1-1.fc9 = libICE.so.6()(64bit) libSM.so.6()(64bit) libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libblkid.so.1()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglade-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libstartup-notification-1.so.0()(64bit) libxml2.so.2()(64bit) usermode = 1.93.1-1.fc9 * %check is not present, automated testing not possible. * 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. * even though there are GUI applications here, there's no point in having desktop files as the graphical bits aren't called directly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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