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: authd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225294 bugzilla@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Version|devel |rawhide limb@xxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |limb@xxxxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From limb@xxxxxxxxxxxx 2008-02-05 15:12 EST ------- rpmlint on srpm: authd.src:7: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes pidentd The specfile contains an unversioned Obsoletes: token, which will match all older, equal and newer versions of the obsoleted thing. This may cause update problems, restrict future package/provides naming, and may match something it was originally not inteded to match -- make the Obsoletes versioned if possible. authd.src:18: W: prereq-use xinetd The use of PreReq is deprecated. In the majority of cases, a plain Requires is enough and the right thing to do. Sometimes Requires(pre), Requires(post), Requires(preun) and/or Requires(postun) can also be used instead of PreReq. authd.src: W: no-url-tag The URL tag is missing. These need fixing. rpmlint on rpms: authd.i386: E: non-readable /etc/ident.key 0640 The file can't be read by everybody. If this is expected (for security reasons), contact your rpmlint distributor to get it added to the list of exceptions for your distro (or add it to your local configuration if you installed rpmlint from the source tarball). authd.i386: E: zero-length /etc/ident.key authd.i386: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/ident.key A configuration file is stored in your package without the noreplace flag. A way to resolve this is to put the following in your SPEC file: %config(noreplace) /etc/your_config_file_here These are OK. authd.i386: W: dangerous-command-in-%post chown Fix if possible, might want to use the full path to chown. In addition to needing a URL tag, the Source tag needs a url pointing to the upstream tarball. If Fedora or RH are upstream, get a space on hosted. License tag should be GPLv2+. Error in rawhide mock build: Executing(%build): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.30946 + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + cd authd-1.4.3 + LANG=C + export LANG + unset DISPLAY + make prefix=/usr gcc -std=gnu99 -Wall -W -DNDEBUG -g -O -lcrypto -o in.authd authd.c authd.c: In function 'created_pton_hex': authd.c:198: error: 'struct in6_addr' has no member named 'in6_u' authd.c:202: error: 'struct in6_addr' has no member named 'in6_u' authd.c: In function 'initialize_crypto': authd.c:784: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 4 of 'EVP_BytesToKey' differ in signedness make: *** [in.authd] Error 1 error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.30946 (%build) RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.30946 (%build) EXCEPTION: Command failed. See logs for output. # bash -l -c 'rpmbuild -bb --target i386 --nodeps //builddir/build/SPECS/authd.spec' Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/mock/trace_decorator.py", line 70, in trace result = func(*args, **kw) File "/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/mock/util.py", line 286, in do raise mock.exception.Error, ("Command failed. See logs for output.\n # %s" % (command,), ret) Error: Command failed. See logs for output. # bash -l -c 'rpmbuild -bb --target i386 --nodeps //builddir/build/SPECS/authd.spec' LEAVE do --> EXCEPTION RAISED Other than that, looks good, no other blockers. -- 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