[Bug 225659] Merge Review: cracklib
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=225659 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ti...@math.uh.edu --- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-01-14 21:18:31 EDT --- Hmm, nothing from Jef. I took a quick look, though, and while the spec looks very nice and clean, I do have a couple of comments. Were this a new package that hadn't existed for approximately forever, I would complain about these files: /usr/include/crack.h /usr/include/packer.h /usr/sbin/mkdict /usr/sbin/packer as being terribly generic. However, if the first package in wins then this beats everything by default, and there's obviously no point in changing it now. rpmlint does have a few complaints which can be essentially ignored: cracklib-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation cracklib-dicts.x86_64: W: no-documentation cracklib-python.x86_64: W: no-documentation True but not problematic. cracklib-dicts.x86_64: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib This is true, but I don't really see a problem in what you're doing. Does anything absolutely require those symlinks to be there? If it didn't, you could conceivably make this subpackage noarch (once the buildsys support for that is finished). cracklib-dicts.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/sbin/packer cracklib-packer cracklib-dicts.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/sbin/mkdict cracklib-format These are fine; the dependencies ensure that the symlinks aren't dangling. cracklib.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libcrack.so.2.8.0 e...@glibc_2.2.5 This is kind of weird, and usually indicates a bug or thinko in the package, but isn't a packaging issue. It also complains about a couple of things which could do with fixing: cracklib-dicts.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot The standard CrackLib dictionaries. Terribly minor, but perhaps worth fixing if you're in the spec. cracklib.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/sbin/cracklib-unpacker ['/usr/lib64'] cracklib.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/sbin/cracklib-packer ['/usr/lib64'] cracklib.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/sbin/cracklib-check ['/usr/lib64'] cracklib-python.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/_cracklibmodule.so ['/usr/lib64'] I don't know why these didn't turn up earlier. Maybe libtool2 actually makes things worse? In any case, the recommended hack of tweaking libtool didn't help, so I guess a call to chrpath is needed. If the latter were fixed, I'd have no qualms about approving this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225659] Merge Review: cracklib
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=225659 --- Comment #6 from Nalin Dahyabhai 2009-02-19 13:42:34 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > cracklib-dicts.x86_64: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > This is true, but I don't really see a problem in what you're doing. Does > anything absolutely require those symlinks to be there? If it didn't, you > could conceivably make this subpackage noarch (once the buildsys support for > that is finished). The FascistCheck() function in the library takes an absolute path to the dictionaries to check, so there's an unknown number of packages out there that hard-code locations under /usr/lib /usr/lib64 (though, come to think of it, there could be some mistakenly referencing /usr/lib on 64-bit systems... ugh). > It also complains about a couple of things which could do with fixing: > > cracklib-dicts.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot The standard CrackLib >dictionaries. > Terribly minor, but perhaps worth fixing if you're in the spec. Agreed, fixed. > cracklib.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath > /usr/sbin/cracklib-unpacker >['/usr/lib64'] > cracklib.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/sbin/cracklib-packer >['/usr/lib64'] > cracklib.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/sbin/cracklib-check >['/usr/lib64'] > cracklib-python.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath >/usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/_cracklibmodule.so ['/usr/lib64'] > I don't know why these didn't turn up earlier. Maybe libtool2 actually makes > things worse? In any case, the recommended hack of tweaking libtool didn't > help, so I guess a call to chrpath is needed. Weird indeed. A local rebuild seems to keep cracklib-packer from being afflicted again, so I'm going to check in the summary change and throw it at the build system. ... Hmm, looks good from here. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225659] Merge Review: cracklib
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=225659 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE AssignedTo|na...@redhat.com|ti...@math.uh.edu Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-02-19 14:04:32 EDT --- I know there was a problem with libtool and rpath which has been fixed very recently (in 2.2.6-10) and indeed when I build this package now the rpath issue is gone. So I'd say that everything looks good to me, and I'll twiddle the flags and close this out. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225659] Merge Review: cracklib
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=225659 Jason Tibbitts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo? | --- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-12-04 14:57:01 EDT --- Wow, this one hasn't been touched for a while. Jef, did you want to continue this review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225659] Merge Review: cracklib
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: cracklib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225659 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225659] Merge Review: cracklib
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: cracklib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225659 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-11 06:19 EST --- review checklist for cracklib Sumary NOT APPROVED. See the notes below for full details. Attached to this report is a diff of the specfile which includes all of my suggested changes. The package owner should review the diff if there are items which can not be incorporated, bring it up as a comment to this report for discussion. NOTE: Not all the blockers have been address in the specfile diff. There are items which the package owner must address which are not obvious specfile fixes. + GOOD - BAD + rpmlint... see the notes at the end. I've rolled in changes into the spec from the rpmlint log info + packagename is fine + specfile name is fine + license check Artistic , matches source license for SOURCE0, and LICENSE file included in %doc spec is english-ish - md5sum check of sources 9a8c9eb26b48787c84024ac779f64bb2 cracklib-2.8.9.tar.gz from SOURCE0 URL 9a8c9eb26b48787c84024ac779f64bb2 /home/jspaleta/rpmbuild/SOURCES/cracklib-2.8.9.tar.gz md5sum check: ASSurnames.gz: OK cartoon.gz: OK common-passwords.txt.gz: OK Congress.gz: OK cracklib-2.8.9.tar.gz: OK cracklib-words.gz: FAILED Domains.gz: OK Dosref.gz: OK etc-hosts.gz: OK famous.gz: OK fast-names.gz: OK female-names.gz: OK Ftpsites.gz: OK Given-Names.gz: OK Jargon.gz: OK LCarrol.gz: OK male-names.gz: OK Movies.gz: OK myths-legends.gz: OK names.french.gz: OK names.hp.gz: OK other-names.gz: OK Paradise.Lost.gz: OK Python.gz: OK sf.gz: OK shakespeare.gz: OK surnames.finnish.gz: OK Trek.gz: OK d18e670e5df560a8745e1b4dede8f84f cracklib-words.gz from SOURCE1 URL 575a44add4db95b43c7abb46b307950f /home/jspaleta/rpmbuild/SOURCES/cracklib-words.gz + mock build as done by matt http://linux.dell.com/files/fedora/FixBuildRequires/mock-results-core/i386/cracklib-2.8.9-8.src.rpm/result/ - buildrequires removed gzip as exception provided by buildsys...fixed in specfile diff + shared libs exist and ldconfig is run in the correct script actions + not designed to be relocatable + no duplicates in the files section + file permissions look okay to me - static libs are currently included in the -devel package.. this is a no no unless you have a good reason + docs section looks fine - devel subpackage, includes .so and headerfiles... and a static .a which it should not, unless it really really needs to. + no gui apps + no obvious duplicate file/directory ownership BAD *cracklib-words.gz included sources does NOT match upstream according to the checksum. This is a little sticky, since the upstream file is not versioned nor in a versioned directory. if upstream continues to update this file its difficult to make a version comparison to some known state. *pass-file.gz doesn't appear to have an upstream URL even though its listed as a source, so there is no upstream to md5sum to check against. If there is no upstream for this file, this should be at least noted as a comment in the specfile. I don't think this its super critical considering this is a dictionary file and not the functional codebase itself... but it definitely should be noted in the specfile that its an inhouse creation and why it was created. This one I can't fix in my specfile diff because I don't know why that file is there. *gzip as a buildrequires, removed in specfile diff as a buildsys provided exception * is there a compelling reason to include the static libcrack.a in the -devel package? The guidelines frown very heavily on including static libraries, and there needs to be a compelling reason to do so. Removed from the package in the specfile diff *cracklib-dicts needs cracklib because of the symlinks in /usr/sbin/ ...fixed in specfile diff. rpmlint log from dell ...reviewer comments inline rpmlint on cracklib-2.8.9-8.i386.rpm W: cracklib summary-ended-with-dot A password-checking library. ... fixed in specfile diff E: cracklib tag-not-utf8 %changelog ... fixed in specfile diff W: cracklib one-line-command-in-%trigger /sbin/ldconfig ... not sure about this one rpmlint on cracklib-2.8.9-8.src.rpm W: cracklib summary-ended-with-dot A password-checking library. E: cracklib tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: cracklib non-utf8-spec-file cracklib.spec ... fixed in specfile diff W: cracklib mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 102, tab: line 108) ... fixed in specfile diff rpmlint on cracklib-devel-2.8.9-8.i386.rpm W: cracklib-devel summary-ended-with-dot Development files needed for building applications which use cracklib. ... fixed in diff E: cracklib-devel tag-not-utf8 %changelog W: cracklib-devel no-documentation ... bogus not important rpmlint on cracklib-python-2.8.9-8.i386.rpm W: cracklib-python summary-ended-with-dot Python bindings for applications which use cracklib. ... fixed
[Bug 225659] Merge Review: cracklib
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: cracklib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225659 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-11 06:21 EST --- Created an attachment (id=147852) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147852&action=view) specfile diff which includes suggested fixes for merge review issues -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225659] Merge Review: cracklib
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: cracklib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225659 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225659] Merge Review: cracklib
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: cracklib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225659 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-12 20:06 EST --- Thanks for the detailed review! I don't have a good reason for leaving the static library in there, so it's gone. I've updated the cracklib-words.gz file and noted its retrieval time in the .spec file, and noted that the pass-file.gz comes from bugzilla. The trigger script now specifies ldconfig as its interpreter, so it shouldn't need the shell at that stage. I think that's got it sorted, building 2.9-9 as a candidate fix. Please let me know if you (or anyone else reading this) spots anything I've missed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225659] Merge Review: cracklib
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: cracklib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225659 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Version|devel |rawhide [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||426387 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review