[Bug 508954] Review Request: volume_key - An utility for manipulating storage encryption keys and passphrases
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Jul 1 17:53:44 UTC 2009
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=508954
--- Comment #6 from Miloslav Trmač <mitr at redhat.com> 2009-07-01 13:53:43 EDT ---
Thanks for the review.
(In reply to comment #5)
> - Could not find libblkid-devel as BR
Provided by util-linux-ng in rawhide, see e.g.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=105530
> - you mas include the crypsetup patch via a Patch statement
I do:
| # http://code.google.com/p/cryptsetup/issues/detail?id=15
| Patch0:
https://fedorahosted.org/releases/v/o/volume_key/cryptsetup-svn-r62.patch
> - some warnings from rpmlint on binary packages
> $ rpmlint volume_key-devel-0.2-1.x86_64.rpm
> volume_key-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
> [s4504kr at zeus result]$ rpmlint python-volume_key-0.2-1.x86_64.rpm
> python-volume_key.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
I'm afraid there really is no documentation (well, I have a sample Python
program, but not a documentation of the interface).
> - Verbatin copy of the license will no included in the %doc stanza
See the "libs" subpackage - if any subpackage is installed, volume_key-libs
will be installed as well.
> - Please remove the *.la files instead of exclude it in the %files stanza
Why? Does it make any difference?
--
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.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list