[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities

[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: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556





------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com  2007-01-24 00:24 EST -------
OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License (GPL)
OK - License field in spec matches
OK - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
e6afeeb371c5d7d8c8d3c6dc379dd11a  ecryptfs-utils-9.tar.bz2
e6afeeb371c5d7d8c8d3c6dc379dd11a  ecryptfs-utils-9.tar.bz2.1
bbd72d4036e2b0faf7a8a4ca204fed274c6849cd  ecryptfs-utils-9.tar.bz2
bbd72d4036e2b0faf7a8a4ca204fed274c6849cd  ecryptfs-utils-9.tar.bz2.1
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Package has correct buildroot
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.

OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
OK - .so files in -devel subpackage.
See below - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}

OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
See below - No rpmlint output.
See below - final provides and requires are sane:

SHOULD Items:

OK - Should build in mock.
OK - Should build on all supported archs
See below - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned 
depend.
See below - Should have dist tag
OK - Should package latest version

Issues:

1. Might include the following as %doc files:
AUTHORS NEWS THANKS

2. The devel subpackage should have:
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
You have currently => and just version.

3. rpmlint says:

E: ecryptfs-utils binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/ecryptfsd ['/usr/
lib64']
E: ecryptfs-utils binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/ecryptfs-manager ['/
usr/lib64']
E: ecryptfs-utils binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /sbin/mount.ecryptfs ['/usr/
lib64']

See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-
a1dfb5f46bf4098841e31a75d833e6e1b3e72544

4. The keyutils-libs Requires doesn't seem needed.
keyutils pulls it in, and thats already required.

5. Should add the dist tag, as discussed in previous comments.

A few other notes, not related to packaging:

- http://ecryptfs.sourceforge.net/README seems to be out of date?

- I tried the example in the README, doing:
mkdir /root/crypt /mnt/crypt; mount -t ecryptfs /root/crypt /mnt/crypt
It prompts me for a passphrase, etc, but then I don't see the dir mounted
and writing files just appears to write to the dirs, am I missing a step?
I see reports of someone perhaps having the same issue on a x86_64 box,
which I am also using... Installing the i386 version gets me:
Error mounting ecryptfs

- I'm not sure what the README means by a 'layover mount', can you expand?

- If it would help you are welcome to use my x86_64 test box
to track down x86_64 issues.


-- 
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.