Request for a sponsor and a review of: pam_abl

[Alexander Dalloz]

Am Mi, den 13.07.2005 schrieb Michael Schwendt um 14:31:

> > That leads me directly to the question: is it necessary to test software
> > builds on FC4 with it's latest gcc? 
> 
> "Yes, of course!" to the latter question.

Ok, will then have to freshly install a build environment based on FC4.

> > > Specfile:
> > > * Release should be 1%{?dist}
> > 
> > Ok, so the dist tag seems to be mandatory, other than the wiki says.
> 
> No, it isn't.

Hm, for 2 rpms without dist tag set I got for both the feedback to set
it. I thought at least for the keychain rpm, which just puts the shell
script and man page into rpm the dist tag does not make much sense. For
packages build against specific distribution version libs I think it
makes sense to have an "indicator" like the dist tag in the package
filename.
 
A different question, but too regarding package naming. The pam_abl
source code tarball is named by it's author

pam_abl-20050110-0.2.2.tar.gz

I initially thought it would be proper to set

%{name} -> pam_abl
%{version} -> 0.2.2
%{release} -> 20050110

Using the dist tag means that wherever %{release} should be used I
instead have to use "20050110", like in Source0 or BuildRoot. I am on
the right path?
Another issue with the %{release} is the way how to increase it for
reflecting rpm changes. What would be the proper choice for %{release}?

%{release} -> 20050110-1%{?dist}

In this way? Or better to omit the date value and using a self chosen
release number? What's the recommended way?
 
> > > E: pam_abl hardcoded-library-path in /lib/security/$ISA/pam_abl.so
> > 
> > Where is that error triggered from?
> 
> rpmlint examining your PAM file.

So, like Oliver guesses, I think it must be triggered by the path
mentioned in the %description section.

> On x86_64, PAM modules are stored in /lib64/security/..., so it is
> a mistake to hardcode the path. Just put "pam_abl.so" there.

I think I took care for this.

Regards

Alexander


-- 
 
1024D/866ED681 2005-07-11 Alexander Dalloz (Fedora Project) <alex at dalloz.de>
Key fingerprint = CD40 0A91 7814 C1E4 5940  8E0E 1FD5 C316 866E D681

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20050713/9c03de4f/attachment.sig>