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 tmraz@xxxxxxxxxx 2008-01-14 07:51 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > Issues: > > 1. I see that upstream is named Linux-PAM. Perhaps consider re-naming it? I don't think it's worth the hassle - on the administrative side and on the users' confusion side as well. > 2. Might add a comment about why this package needs it's own private copy > of the db package. OK, I've extended the comment on line 76. > 3. shouldn't the license of pam_tty_audit.c be GPLv2 per RedHat guidelines? No, this module will be upstreamed in the next upstream release, so it should keep the preferred upstream licence. > 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. What is the %test section good for? I cannot find any mention of %test anywhere. I'd prefer to have these simple tests run as part of the build/install process, they are pretty simple and fast. > 5. Might ask upstream to include a copy of the GPL COPYING file too. Will do. > 6. Why strip the binaries? > # Forcibly strip binaries. > strip $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_sbindir}/* ||: > > debuginfo should pull that out. That is a workaround hack for an old problem with rpmbuild where it didn't strip setuid binaries. Removed. > 7. Might note that we can depreciate the pre/post hacks for USEMD5 after a while. They are not too useful anymore and even can break things. Removed. > 8. No need to require 'coreutils'. Why not? I need 'install' in %post > 9. 15 open bugs > You might look at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=218063 WONTFIXed - current rpm shouldn't complain anymore > and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428444 in particular. NOTABUG - there is already BuildRequires: libtool > 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. Both changes done. > 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? Unfortunately pam doesn't build with it yet. I'll fix the Makefiles in future and add this then. Fixes are in pam-0.99.8.1-15.fc9. -- 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