[Bug 197048] Review Request: pam_script

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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: pam_script


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197048


tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink at leemhuis.info |tibbs at math.uh.edu
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163778
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2006-06-28 11:06 EST -------
This fails to build in mock:

+ make
gcc -Wall -pedantic -fPIC -shared  -o pam_script.so pam_script.c
pam_script.c:23:34: error: security/_pam_macros.h: No such file or directory
pam_script.c:24:34: error: security/pam_modules.h: No such file or directory
pam_script.c:48: error: expected ')' before '*' token
pam_script.c:83: error: expected ')' before '*' token
pam_script.c:240: error: expected '=', ',', ';', 'asm' or '__attribute__' before
'int'
pam_script.c:249: error: expected '=', ',', ';', 'asm' or '__attribute__' before
'int'
pam_script.c:259: error: expected '=', ',', ';', 'asm' or '__attribute__' before
'int'
pam_script.c:296: error: expected '=', ',', ';', 'asm' or '__attribute__' before
'int'
make: *** [pam_script.so] Errror 1

Adding BuildRequires: pam-devel fixes this up; rpmlint is happy with the
resulting package.  I'll assume the BR: is there for the purposes of this review.

The compiler isn't called with the appropriate flags.  You need to pass in
${optflags} somehow.  This also causes the -debuginfo package to be broken.

* package meets naming and packaging guidelines (pam modules use an underscore).
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.  License text not included upstream. 
* source files match upstream:
   9f1031154718b79d6ee79c9c5231b1d4  pam-script-0.1.7.tar.gz
* latest version is being packaged.
X BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64) (after adding BR: pam-devel)
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   pam_script.so()(64bit)
   pam_script = 0.1.7-1.fc6
  =
   (empty)
* shared libraries are present, internal to pam.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates (doesn't own /lib/security, but I think pam is
a requirement for any running system)
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.