[Bug 226519] Merge Review: usermode
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Dec 22 03:26:24 UTC 2007
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: usermode
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226519
tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tibbs at math.uh.edu
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flag| |fedora-review?
------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-12-21 22:26 EST -------
I'll take a look at this. Note that I'm happy to provide a patch fixing the issues I know how to fix, or make the changed directly in CVS if you prefer.
Does this package have an upstream? If so, a URL tag is needed and if not, the spec needs a comment to that effect: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
No need for the SysVinit conflict; even RH9 has SysVinit 2.84.
Similarly, you can drop some of the versions from the dependencies, as we don't support any releases with such old versions of libselinux-devel or pam.
Is the WITH_SELINUX stuff still necessary these days? No problem if it's still needed, but it might be a bit cleaner to use the %bcond_without macro.
The copying file must be include in the package as %doc.
Why does this have a direct dependency on /etc/pam.d/system-auth? It's
been provided by the pam package as far back as the oldest machine I can
access (RH 7.2).
Some rpmlint complaints:
usermode.x86_64: E: setuid-binary /usr/sbin/userhelper root 04711
usermode.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/userhelper 04711
usermode.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/userhelper 04711
These are expected
usermode.x86_64: W: no-url-tag
usermode-gtk.x86_64: W: no-url-tag
If there's an upstream web page, it should be indicated
usermode.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/security/console.apps/halt
usermode.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/security/console.apps/poweroff
usermode.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/security/console.apps/reboot
I'm not sure what to do with these. If they're really configuration files
then they need to nave %noreplace so updates don't overwrite local changes.
Checklist:
? don't know if there's an upstream to compare against.
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
X build root is not correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text is in the tarball but not in the package.
? can't tell latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* debuginfo package looks complete.
X rpmlint has valid complaints.
? final provides and requires:
usermode-1.93.1-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm
config(usermode) = 1.93.1-1.fc9
usermode = 1.93.1-1.fc9
=
? /etc/pam.d/system-auth
config(usermode) = 1.93.1-1.fc9
libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libpam.so.0()(64bit)
libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_1.0)(64bit)
libpam_misc.so.0()(64bit)
libpam_misc.so.0(LIBPAM_MISC_1.0)(64bit)
libselinux.so.1()(64bit)
libuser.so.1()(64bit)
pam >= 0.75-37
passwd
util-linux
usermode-gtk-1.93.1-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm
usermode-gtk = 1.93.1-1.fc9
=
libICE.so.6()(64bit)
libSM.so.6()(64bit)
libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libblkid.so.1()(64bit)
libcairo.so.2()(64bit)
libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libglade-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libstartup-notification-1.so.0()(64bit)
libxml2.so.2()(64bit)
usermode = 1.93.1-1.fc9
* %check is not present, automated testing not possible.
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* 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 static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.
* even though there are GUI applications here, there's no point in having
desktop files as the graphical bits aren't called directly.
--
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.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list