[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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR)      |
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+




--- Comment #18 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2009-07-29 17:26:51 EDT ---
I ran out of time there for a bit, but I have some time now.

This builds fine; rpmlint is down to just complaints about setuid binaries,
which we've already established is OK.

Generally I wouldn't advocate static linking, but I don't really see how it
makes a difference as the library is only intended for use within this package.
 If it's what upstream recommends then that's fine, although those issues were
trivial to fix in the usual manner.

There does seem to be a test suite; did you try running it in a %check section?
 I tried and I get "All 0 tests passed" but it's possible that something other
than a plain "make check" is needed.   I don't think this is a significant
issue, though, and it's the only issue I see, so I'll go ahead and approve this
package and if your investigations show that it is reasonable to call the test
suite then you can set that up.

I've sponsored you; it should take perhaps an hour for the ACLs to propagate
and then you can make your CVS request.

* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:
   c3bca449abdf28b66f6aede8892ce61967b5c1d758ba567e8648ccfb0cf914ec  
   schroot_1.2.3.orig.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.                                                              
* description is OK.                                                          
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint has acceptable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
  dchroot-1.2.3-2.fc12.x86_64.rpm
   dchroot = 1.2.3-2.fc12           
   dchroot(x86-64) = 1.2.3-2.fc12   
  =                              
   libboost_filesystem-mt.so.5()(64bit)  
   libboost_program_options-mt.so.5()(64bit)  
   libboost_regex-mt.so.5()(64bit)            
   libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)                     
   libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)              
   liblockdev.so.1()(64bit)                   
   libpam.so.0()(64bit)                       
   libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_1.0)(64bit)             
   libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)                    
   libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)          
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.11)(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.9)(64bit)

  schroot-1.2.3-2.fc12.x86_64.rpm
   config(schroot) = 1.2.3-2.fc12
   schroot = 1.2.3-2.fc12
   schroot(x86-64) = 1.2.3-2.fc12
  =
   /bin/sh
   config(schroot) = 1.2.3-2.fc12
   libboost_filesystem-mt.so.5()(64bit)
   libboost_program_options-mt.so.5()(64bit)
   libboost_regex-mt.so.5()(64bit)
   libboost_system-mt.so.5()(64bit)
   libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
   libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
   liblockdev.so.1()(64bit)
   libpam.so.0()(64bit)
   libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_1.0)(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.11)(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.9)(64bit)

? There's a test suite, but no %check section.  Not sure it makes sense to run 
   it.
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.

APPROVED

-- 
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.