[Bug 245015] PolicyKit package review

[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: PolicyKit package review


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245015





------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com  2007-06-21 00:01 EST -------
ok, here comes a more formal checklist

rpmlint output on PolicyKit-0.3-1.fc8.i386.rpm:
E: PolicyKit non-standard-uid /var/run/PolicyKit polkit
E: PolicyKit non-standard-gid /var/run/PolicyKit polkit
E: PolicyKit non-standard-dir-perm /var/run/PolicyKit 0775
E: PolicyKit non-standard-uid /var/lib/PolicyKit polkit
E: PolicyKit non-standard-gid /var/lib/PolicyKit polkit
E: PolicyKit non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/PolicyKit 0775
E: PolicyKit non-standard-gid /usr/libexec/polkit-grant-helper polkit
E: PolicyKit setgid-binary /usr/libexec/polkit-grant-helper polkit 02755
E: PolicyKit non-standard-executable-perm /usr/libexec/polkit-grant-helper 02755

The errors about uid/gid should be covered by the bug asking for
a standard uid/gid

The errors about permissions should probably be handled
by adding a comment explaining why these permissions are necessary

W: PolicyKit incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.3.0-1 0.3-1.fc8

This should be corrected

W: PolicyKit invalid-license AFL/GPL

I believe rpmlint is just dumb here

W: PolicyKit conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/PolicyKit/PolicyKit.conf
W: PolicyKit conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/pam.d/polkit

What about these, David ? Is there any good reason not to make these
noreplace ?

rpmlint output on PolicyKit-docs-0.3-1.fc8.i386.rpm 
W: PolicyKit-docs invalid-license AFL/GPL

see above

W: PolicyKit one-line-command-in-%post /sbin/ldconfig
W: PolicyKit one-line-command-in-%postun /sbin/ldconfig

This has already been mentioned as something that should be changed

rpmlint output on PolicyKit-devel-0.3-1.fc8.i386.rpm
W: PolicyKit-devel no-documentation
W: PolicyKit-devel invalid-license AFL/GPL

the no-docs warning is ignorable, the other is already covered


package name: follows upstream tarball name, ok
spec file name: ok
packaging guidelines: see comment #2
license: ok. Small typo in  COPYING noticed in passing: 
    "[...] may be under the GPL only or under the LGPG."
license field: ok
license file: ok
American English: ok
legibility: pretty good
sources match upstream: ok
buildable: ok
excludearch: n/a
build requires: complete
locales: n/a
ldconfig: is run
relocatable: n/a
directory ownership: 
  - must require pam, for /etc/pam.d
  - must own /etc/PolicyKit, /usr/lib/PolicyKit, /usr/lib/PolicyKit/modules
file list duplicates: ok
file permissions: ok
%clean: ok
macro use: ok
content: permissable
doc subpackage: yes
%doc: ok
header files: ok
static libs: n/a
pc files: ok, see above for pkgconfig requirement
shared libs: ok
-devel requires: ok
libtool archives: ok
desktop files: n/a
directory ownership again: see above
%install cleans build root: yes
filenames utf8: ok 


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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.