[Bug 374611] Review Request: pam_mysql - PAM module for auth UNIX users using MySQL data base

[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_mysql - PAM module for auth UNIX users using MySQL data base


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=374611


wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+




------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro  2008-01-14 08:15 EST -------
Package Review
==============

Key:
 - = N/A
 x = Check
 ! = Problem
 ? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
 [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
 [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec.
 [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
     Tested on: all arch supported by koji scratch build
 [x] Rpmlint output:
Source RPM: none
Binary RPM:
pam_mysql.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/pam_mysql-0.7/CREDITS
pam_mysql.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.7-0.1.rc1.1
1:0.7-0.3.rc1.fc9 [see issue 1]
 [x] Package is not relocatable.
 [x] Buildroot is correct [see also issue 2]
 [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     License type:GPLv2+
 [x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
 [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
 [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
     SHA1SUM of package: a139c4b4bf1a2e591a016069405428eb862f7690
pam_mysql-0.7RC1.tar.gz
 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
 [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are
listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [see also issue 2]
 [-] The spec file handles locales properly.
 [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
 [x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
 [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
 [x] Permissions on files are set properly.
 [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
 [x] Package consistently uses macros.
 [x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
 [x] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
 [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
 [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
 [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
There is a .so file, but it is NOT used for devel
 [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
 [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
 [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
 [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
 [x] Latest version is packaged.
 [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
 [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English la
nguages, if available.
 [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
     Tested on:devel/x86_64, Centos 5/i386, Centos 4/i386
 [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
     Tested on: all archs supported by koji scratch build
 [x] Package functions as described.
 [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
 [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
 [-] File based requires are sane.

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
 [x] Latest version is packaged.
 [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
 [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English la
nguages, if available.
 [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
     Tested on:devel/x86_64, Centos 5/i386, Centos 4/i386
 [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
     Tested on: all archs supported by koji scratch build
 [x] Package functions as described.
 [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
 [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
 [-] File based requires are sane.


=== Issues ===
1.rpmlint gives
- pam_mysql.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/pam_mysql-0.7/CREDITS
Using iconv would fix that
- pam_mysql.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.7-0.1.rc1.1
1:0.7-0.3.rc1.fc9
The last one is triggered by the presence of a changelog entry inserted by
rel-eng. Please correct the newest changelog entry (it is not in sync with the
release tag anyway) before commit.
2. Although technically the value you have chosen for BuildRoot is correct,
please consider replacing it with one of the variants listed at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-b4fdd45fa76cbf54c885ef08363613
19ab962473
3. There is a Duplicate BuildRequires: openssl-devel (by mysql-devel),
zlib-devel (by openssl-devel). Current fedora style packaging calls for removing
the duplicates but I see it as a minor problem.


================
*** APPROVED ***
================

If you do not mind, please ask for EPEL branches and add me as co-maintainer for
them (or for the whole package, whatever you seem fit). I am using it on several
 servers, so I am directly interested in it.


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