https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855283
Michael Scherer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855283
--- Comment #14 from Jason A. Donenfeld ---
Bump the .spec to 1.1.4 and we should be all set.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing lis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855283
--- Comment #13 from Jason A. Donenfeld ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> So all is good, except the license file do not contain the full license,
> just a note saying "the license should be distributed with the tarbll, if
> not, contact fsf". Could
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855283
--- Comment #12 from Jason A. Donenfeld ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Looking at the source code, there is a call to qdus, but qt is not in
> Requires.
However, qdbus should absolutely NOT be required. It's run with >/dev/null
2>&1, and in the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855283
--- Comment #11 from Christophe Fergeau ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Looking at the source code, there is a call to qdus, but qt is not in
> Requires.
Yes, I checked this with upstream, and he told me this is optional (the command
is ran with
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855283
--- Comment #10 from Pierre-YvesChibon ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> This is an informal review
[...]
> Generic
> [x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
> Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
> [x]: EXT
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855283
--- Comment #9 from Michael Scherer ---
So all is good, except the license file do not contain the full license, just a
note saying "the license should be distributed with the tarbll, if not, contact
fsf". Could the license be added in the file ?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855283
--- Comment #8 from Luis Bazan ---
This is an informal review
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855283
--- Comment #7 from Michael Scherer ---
Mhh, forget, pwgen is there
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855283
--- Comment #6 from Michael Scherer ---
Looking at the source code, there is a call to qdus, but qt is not in Requires.
There is also a call to pwgen, and not in Requires either.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list fo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855283
--- Comment #5 from Christophe Fergeau ---
Spec URL: http://teuf.fedorapeople.org/reviews/pass/pass.spec
SRPM URL: http://teuf.fedorapeople.org/reviews/pass/pass-1.1.3-1.fc17.src.rpm
Updated the short description, and updated to a newer upstream
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855283
--- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts ---
The %description is indeed accurate. The Summary:, however, describes this as
some sort of standard. Nice marketing for the upstream project, perhaps, but
we should avoid misleading the Fedora user base.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855283
--- Comment #3 from Jason A. Donenfeld ---
I think the idea is that it uses standard unix tools to achieve its aim. In any
case, the description in the .spec appears to be: "stores, retrieves,
generates, and synchronizes passwords securely using
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855283
--- Comment #2 from Jason Tibbitts ---
I wasn't aware that there was a standard unix password manager. Which standard
defines this?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855283
Jason A. Donenfeld changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ja...@zx2c4.com
--- Comment #1 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855283
Michael Scherer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m...@zarb.org
Assignee|nob..
16 matches
Mail list logo
