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: rssh - Restricted shell for use with OpenSSH, allowing only scp and/or sftp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456182 michael@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |michael@xxxxxxxxxx Summary|Review Request: rssh - |Review Request: rssh - |Restricted shell for use |Restricted shell for use |with OpenSSH, allowing only |with OpenSSH, allowing only |scp and/or sftp |scp and/or sftp ------- Additional Comments From michael@xxxxxxxxxx 2008-07-21 23:57 EST ------- I'm not sure I'll be able to finish this review in a timely fashion so I'd prefer for someone else to own the ticket; however, I'm happy to help start the process. Here is my partial review according to revision 0.27 of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines: - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. $ ls /var/lib/mock/fedora-9-i386/result/ build.log root.log rssh-2.3.2-1.fc9.i386.rpm rssh-2.3.2-1.fc9.src.rpm rssh-debuginfo-2.3.2-1.fc9.i386.rpm state.log $ (cd /var/lib/mock/fedora-9-i386/result/; rpmlint *.rpm) rssh.i386: E: setuid-binary /usr/libexec/rssh_chroot_helper root 04755 rssh.i386: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/libexec/rssh_chroot_helper 04755 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings. - MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . Good. - MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming %Guidelines . Good. - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. - libexecdir note: "Packagers are highly encouraged to store libexecdir files in a package-specific subdirectory of %{_libexecdir}, such as %{_libexecdir}/%{name}." - Are conf_convert.sh and mkchroot.sh really documentation? - Static linking note: "The packager must provide rationale for linking statically, including precedences where available, to FESCO for approval." The autotools scripts provided for compiling rssh presently detect a version of openssh >= 3.5 and decide to dynamically link rssh; however, packagers should remain aware of this sensitivity. - MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. Good. - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. Good. - MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. Good. - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. Good. - MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest (http://www.ioccc.org/). Good. - MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. $ wget http://downloads.sourceforge.net/rssh/rssh-2.3.2.tar.gz $ md5sum rssh-2.3.2.tar.gz 65712f2c06ff5fc6fc783bc8c2e4e1ba rssh-2.3.2.tar.gz $ rpmdev-extract rssh-2.3.2-1.fc9.src.rpm $ md5sum rssh-2.3.2-1.fc9/rssh-2.3.2.tar.gz 65712f2c06ff5fc6fc783bc8c2e4e1ba rssh-2.3.2-1.fc9/rssh-2.3.2.tar.gz - MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. The package built successfully under the fedora-9-i386 mock configuration on an i386 machine. - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. NOT CHECKED. - MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the [wiki:Self:Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines] ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. NOT CHECKED. - MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. N/A. - MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. If the package has multiple subpackages with libraries, each subpackage should also have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig. An example of the correct syntax for this is: Good. - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. Good. - MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. Refer to the Guidelines for examples. Good. - MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. Good. - MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. - Do setuid-root executables require any special comment? - MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} ([wiki:Self:Packaging/Guidelines#UsingBuildRootOptFlags or %$RPM_BUILD_ROOT] ). Good. - MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the [wiki:Self:Packaging/Guidelines#macros macros section of Packaging Guidelines] . Good. - MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is described in detail in the [wiki:Self:Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines] . Good. - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity) Good. - MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. Good. (on surface inspection) - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A. - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A. - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). N/A. - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. N/A. - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} N/A. - MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. Good. - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. This is described in detail in the [wiki:Self:Packaging/Guidelines#desktop desktop files section of Packaging Guidelines] . If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. Good. - MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. Good. - MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} ([wiki:Self:Packaging/Guidelines#UsingBuildRootOptFlags or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT] ). See [wiki:Self:Packaging/Guidelines#PreppingBuildRootForInstall Prepping BuildRoot For %install] for details. Good. - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. Good. SHOULD Items: - SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. N/A. - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. N/A. - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See [wiki:Self:PackageMaintainers/MockTricks MockTricks] for details on how to do this. Good. (Tested fedora-9-i386 on i386.) - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. NOT CHECKED. - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. NOT CHECKED. - SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. N/A. - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A. - SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. N/A. - SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. Please see File Dependencies in the Guidelines for further information. N/A. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review