[Bug 567131] Review Request: shibboleth - Web Single Sign On
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=567131 J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) rdas...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com ||/show_bug.cgi?id=737038 -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 567131] Review Request: shibboleth - Web Single Sign On
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=567131 --- Comment #5 from Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to 2011-07-23 09:25:06 EDT --- The limitations of nss_compat_ossl are covered here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Nss_compat_ossl Based on comments in https://bugs.internet2.edu/jira/browse/CPPXT-9 , not being able to use file based certificates may be the biggest limitation. It may be that the way to move forward on this, is to start by adding that support to nss_compat_ossl. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 567131] Review Request: shibboleth - Web Single Sign On
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=567131 Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX Last Closed||2011-04-26 07:33:04 -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 567131] Review Request: shibboleth - Web Single Sign On
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=567131 Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW CC|mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se | -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 567131] Review Request: shibboleth - Web Single Sign On
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=567131 Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se |nob...@fedoraproject.org Flag|fedora-review? | --- Comment #4 from Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se 2011-04-24 02:31:49 EDT --- No news in more than a year - giving back the review. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 567131] Review Request: shibboleth - Web Single Sign On
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=567131 Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Status Whiteboard||NotReady -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 567131] Review Request: shibboleth - Web Single Sign On
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=567131 --- Comment #3 from Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch 2010-03-30 08:09:08 EDT --- This review is a bit stuck since i have become aware of this: https://bugs.internet2.edu/jira/browse/CPPXT-9 essentially there are known problems with nss linked curl. Steve -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 567131] Review Request: shibboleth - Web Single Sign On
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=567131 Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 567131] Review Request: shibboleth - Web Single Sign On
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=567131 --- Comment #1 from Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch 2010-02-22 14:23:17 EST --- Following comments about one of the patches submitted upstream this contains a replacement patch. It does the alter the packaging in any particular way. Spec URL: http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/shibboleth/shibboleth.spec SRPM URL: http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/shibboleth/shibboleth-2.3.1-2.fc13.src.rpm -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 567131] Review Request: shibboleth - Web Single Sign On
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=567131
Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se 2010-02-22
16:40:31 EST ---
Fedora review shibboleth 2010-02-22
rpmlint results - same as above
The no-reload-entry warning can be fixed. The guidelines says:
if the service does not support this, do nothing
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SysVInitScript#Required_Actions
So adding the following would resolve this:
reload)
;;
The init script also does not support some more of the required
actions listed at the above reference (though rpmlint is not
complaining): condrestart, try-restart, force-reload.
You have worked around the missing condrestart in %postun by calling
status + restart instead, so it is not critical for the installation.
+ package named according to guidelines
+ specfile named after package
+ package license ASL 2.0 is Fedora approved
+ package license matches license statements in the sorces
? The corresponding package in Debian says:
The original upstream source was repackaged to remove the WS-Trust.xsd
schema, which was not distributed under a DFSG-free license.
Should this be done for Fedora too?
The file is strange. The license doesn't seem to grant right to
modify, but the comment at the top says modified copy.
The corresponding file on the oasis server seems to have a less
questionable license:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-sx/ws-trust/200512/ws-trust-1.3.xsd
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and
distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind.
+ The license file (LICENSE.txt) is included in %doc
+ specfile is written in legible English
$ cksum shibboleth-sp-2.3.1.tar.gz srpm/shibboleth-sp-2.3.1.tar.gz
432835999 806177 shibboleth-sp-2.3.1.tar.gz
432835999 806177 srpm/shibboleth-sp-2.3.1.tar.gz
+ sources matches upstream
+ builds in mock
? Looks like some build requires are missing:
configure: WARNING: dot not found - will not generate graphics for doxygen
documentation
→ missing build requires graphviz ?
checking sql.h usability... no
checking sql.h presence... no
checking for sql.h... no
→ build requires unixODBC should be unixODBC-devel ?
checking for FastCGI support... no
→ there is a build requires on fcgi-devel, but the default is no
→ missing configure flag --with-fastcgi=yes ?
checking for Memcached support... no
→ missing build requires libmemcached-devel ?
→ missing configure flag --with-memcached=yes (default is no here too) ?
+ ldconfig called appropriately
+ package owns directories it creates
? package should require xml-common since it installs files in /usr/share/xml
+ no duplicates in %files
+ permissions are sane and %files have %defattr
+ %clean clears buildroot
? The pid directory created in the specfile %{_var}/%{name}/run looks strange,
shouldn't it be the other way around: %{_var}/run/%{name}?
The %{_var}/run/%{name} directory seems to be created anyway and is
the one that gets packaged. The one created in the specfile is not.
? The specfile uses the %{_XXXdir} macros for everything except for
/var where %{_var} is used instead of %{_localstatedir}
(not really a big problem - if it is one at all)
+ %doc is not runtime essential
+ subpackages requires main with fully qualified version
+ .la files removed
+ package does not own other's directories
+ %install clear buildroot
+ filenames are utf-8
--
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.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
