[Bug 447368] Review Request: schroot - Execute commands in a chroot environment

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=447368


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |tibbs at math.uh.edu




--- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2008-11-05 13:17:40 EDT ---
I don't feel competent to fully review this package but I can make a few
comments:

You shouldn't duplicate all of those %doc files between the various
subpackages.

I'm curious as to which guideline you believe mandates that you split off the
libsbuild package.  Generally library splits are only required to prevent
multilib conflicts, but I don't believe this is a multilib package.  (For one
thing, it has no -devel subpackage.)

There are a few rpmlint complaints:
  dchroot.x86_64: E: setuid-binary /usr/bin/dchroot root 04755
  dchroot.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/dchroot 04755
  schroot.x86_64: E: setuid-binary /usr/bin/schroot root 04755
  schroot.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/schroot 04755
Obviously these are intended.

  dchroot.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/dchroot 
   ['/usr/lib64']
  schroot.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath 
   /usr/libexec/schroot/schroot-releaselock ['/usr/lib64']
  schroot.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath 
   /usr/libexec/schroot/schroot-mount ['/usr/lib64']
  schroot.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath 
   /usr/libexec/schroot/schroot-listmounts ['/usr/lib64']
  schroot.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/schroot 
   ['/usr/lib64']
These are problematic.

The tarball seems to include a large amount of doxygen-generated documentation.
 Is that of any use to end-users?  If so it should probably be packaged,
although a subpackage might be useful.

I agree that a security review would be useful, but I'm certainly not the one
to do 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.