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: pam https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226228 ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxx 2008-01-11 16:16 EST ------- See below - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines See below - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License OK - License field in spec matches See below - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: a6472db4afe13850cb401922211bba4e ./Linux-PAM-0.99.8.1.tar.bz2 a6472db4afe13850cb401922211bba4e ./Linux-PAM-0.99.8.1.tar.bz2.1 6b5fc356fdbb0b7cdbbdc80419043cac ./Linux-PAM-0.99.8.1.tar.bz2.sign 6b5fc356fdbb0b7cdbbdc80419043cac ./Linux-PAM-0.99.8.1.tar.bz2.sign.1 OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Spec handles locales/find_lang OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun OK - .so files in -devel subpackage. OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK - .la files are removed. 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. OK - final provides and requires are sane. SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have sane scriptlets. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version 15 open bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package. Issues: 1. I see that upstream is named Linux-PAM. Perhaps consider re-naming it? 2. Might add a comment about why this package needs it's own private copy of the db package. 3. shouldn't the license of pam_tty_audit.c be GPLv2 per RedHat guidelines? 4. Can some of the tests and such be moved from the install section to a %test section? like the dlopen tests and so forth. 5. Might ask upstream to include a copy of the GPL COPYING file too. 6. Why strip the binaries? # Forcibly strip binaries. strip $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_sbindir}/* ||: debuginfo should pull that out. 7. Might note that we can depreciate the pre/post hacks for USEMD5 after a while. 8. No need to require 'coreutils'. 9. 15 open bugs You might look at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=218063 and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428444 in particular. 10. rpmlint says: pam.src:212: E: use-of-RPM_SOURCE_DIR You should be able to remove the following lines from prep: cp %{SOURCE5} . cp %{SOURCE6} . cp %{SOURCE7} . Just refer to the sources directly when installing. Ignore: pam.src:246: E: hardcoded-library-path in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/lib/security pam.src:327: E: hardcoded-library-path in /lib/security pam.src: W: strange-permission dlopen.sh 0755 pam.x86_64: E: setuid-binary /sbin/pam_timestamp_check root 04755 pam.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /sbin/pam_timestamp_check 04755 pam.x86_64: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/security/namespace.init pam.x86_64: E: non-readable /sbin/unix_update 0700 pam.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /sbin/unix_update 0700 pam.x86_64: E: setuid-binary /sbin/unix_chkpwd root 04755 pam.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /sbin/unix_chkpwd 04755 pam.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/security/opasswd 0600 pam.x86_64: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/faillog pam.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/security/console.perms pam.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/security/console.perms.d/50-default.perms pam.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rm pam.x86_64: E: zero-length /etc/security/opasswd Fix if you like: pam.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 130, tab: line 137) 11. Might add a %{?_smp_mflags} to make? -- 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