[Bug 678727] Review Request: pam_afs_session - AFS PAG and AFS tokens on login (sponsor requested)
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=678727 --- Comment #16 from Steve Traylen 2011-05-03 14:14:19 EDT --- Hi Ken, You can close this now with "closed nextrelease" 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 678727] Review Request: pam_afs_session - AFS PAG and AFS tokens on login (sponsor requested)
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=678727 Ken Dreyer changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-05-03 20:58:39 --- Comment #17 from Ken Dreyer 2011-05-03 20:58:39 EDT --- Thanks Steve, done. -- 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 678727] Review Request: pam_afs_session - AFS PAG and AFS tokens on login (sponsor requested)
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=678727 Ken Dreyer changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |pam-afs-session - AFS PAG |pam_afs_session - AFS PAG |and AFS tokens on login |and AFS tokens on login |(sponsor requested) |(sponsor requested) -- 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 678727] Review Request: pam_afs_session - AFS PAG and AFS tokens on login (sponsor requested)
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=678727 Ken Dreyer changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | --- Comment #8 from Ken Dreyer 2011-03-05 14:44:02 EST --- removing FE-NEEDSPONSOR from this review, per https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/569 -- 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 678727] Review Request: pam_afs_session - AFS PAG and AFS tokens on login (sponsor requested)
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=678727 --- Comment #9 from Steve Traylen 2011-03-05 14:52:12 EST --- spectool pam_afs_session.spec Source0: http://archives.eyrie.org/software/afs/pam-afs-session-2.1.tar.gz this URL looks to have vanished, you need to update to 2.2 I guess. It's a shame if upstream deletes old versions? Also you include examples/debian and examples/solaris in your docs and these are irrelavent in this context so should be left out. 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 678727] Review Request: pam_afs_session - AFS PAG and AFS tokens on login (sponsor requested)
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=678727 --- Comment #10 from Ken Dreyer 2011-03-05 18:07:04 EST --- It looks like upstream just moves older versions to an ARCHIVE directory, eg. http://archives.eyrie.org/software/ARCHIVE/pam-afs-session/pam-afs-session-2.1.tar.gz I've updated to 2.2, and removed the examples for other platforms. 2.2-1: http://adiemus.org/~kdreyer/rpms/pam_afs_session.spec http://adiemus.org/~kdreyer/rpms/pam_afs_session-2.2-1.src.rpm Koji scratch builds: F13: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2887900 F14: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2887933 F15: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2887936 EL5: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2887922 EL6: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2887907 -- 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 678727] Review Request: pam_afs_session - AFS PAG and AFS tokens on login (sponsor requested)
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=678727
--- Comment #11 from Steve Traylen 2011-03-06 11:55:13
EST ---
This is really pedantic - sorry.
If you are going to modify the source with
find %{_builddir}/%{buildsubdir}/examples -mindepth 1 -maxdepth 1 -not -name
"redhat" -exec rm -rf {} ';'
then that should be in %prep since this is where you prepare the source.
Otherwise just change
%doc LICENSE NEWS README TODO examples
to
%doc LICENSE NEWS README TODO examples/redhat
--
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 678727] Review Request: pam_afs_session - AFS PAG and AFS tokens on login (sponsor requested)
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=678727 --- Comment #12 from Ken Dreyer 2011-03-06 22:13:40 EST --- (In reply to comment #11) > This is really pedantic - sorry. I appreciate your help and the thoroughness of your review. In the interest of staying closer to upstream's conventions, I want to keep the "examples/redhat/" directory structure. I've moved the find command to the %prep section per your suggestion. Here is 2.2-2: http://adiemus.org/~kdreyer/rpms/pam_afs_session.spec http://adiemus.org/~kdreyer/rpms/pam_afs_session-2.2-2.src.rpm Koji scratch builds: F13: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2889613 EL5: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2889616 -- 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 678727] Review Request: pam_afs_session - AFS PAG and AFS tokens on login (sponsor requested)
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=678727
Steve Traylen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #13 from Steve Traylen 2011-03-13 04:17:09
EDT ---
- Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
It does, pam module ones in particular.
- Spec file matches base package name.
Yes
- Spec has consistant macro usage.
Yes.
- Meets Packaging Guidelines.
Yes
- License
MIT
- License field in spec matches
The LICENSE file is very verbose in specifying all
the various copy rights but yes it seems to MIT.
- License file included in package
Yes
- Spec in American English
Yes
- Spec is legible.
Yes
- Sources match upstream md5sum:
$ md5sum pam-afs-session-2.2.tar.gz ../SOURCES/pam-afs-session-2.2.tar.g
5621adc56319582b71b61546face4409 pam-afs-session-2.2.tar.gz
5621adc56319582b71b61546face4409 ../SOURCES/pam-afs-session-2.2.tar.gz
- Package needs ExcludeArch
It does not
- BuildRequires correct
Yes.
- Spec handles locales/find_lang
Not present.
- Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
Not relocatable.
- Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
They are.
- Package has a correct %clean section.
Yes
- Package has correct buildroot
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
- Package is code or permissible content.
Yes.
- Doc subpackage needed/used.
Not needed.
- Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
They don't
- Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
Not needed.
- Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
Not needed.
- .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig
Not needed
- .so files in -devel subpackage.
Not needed.
- -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
- .la files are removed.
They are.
- Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
No gui
- Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
See koji.
- Package has no duplicate files in %files.
No
- Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
/lib/security is pulled in via pam which is required - good.
- Package owns all the directories it creates.
- No rpmlint output.
pam_afs_session.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US afs -> ads, as,
oafs
pam_afs_session-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) afs -> ads,
as, oafs
pam_afs_session-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US afs
-> ads, as, oafs
pam_afs_session.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US afs -> ads, as,
oafs
- final provides and requires are sane:
$ rpm -qp --provides pam_afs_session-2.2-2.x86_64.rpm
pam_afs_session.so()(64bit)
pam_afs_session = 2.2-2
pam_afs_session(x86-64) = 2.2-2
$ rpm -qp --requires pam_afs_session-2.2-2.x86_64.rpm | grep -v rpm | grep -v
libc
libk5crypto.so.3()(64bit)
libkrb5.so.3()(64bit)
libkrb5.so.3(krb5_3_MIT)(64bit)
libpam.so.0()(64bit)
libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_1.0)(64bit)
libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_EXTENSION_1.0)(64bit)
libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_MODUTIL_1.0)(64bit)
pam_krb5
SHOULD Items:
- Should build in mock.
See koji.
- Should build on all supported archs
See koji
- Should function as described.
Not checked.
- Should have sane scriptlets.
None
- Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.
Not relavent.
- Should have dist tag
Yes
- Should package latest version
Yes
- check for outstanding bugs on package.
Issues:
All seems good. APPROVED.
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 678727] Review Request: pam_afs_session - AFS PAG and AFS tokens on login (sponsor requested)
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=678727 Ken Dreyer changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #14 from Ken Dreyer 2011-03-16 17:03:13 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: pam_afs_session Short Description: AFS PAG and AFS tokens on login Owners: ktdreyer Branches: f13 f14 f15 el5 el6 -- 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 678727] Review Request: pam_afs_session - AFS PAG and AFS tokens on login (sponsor requested)
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=678727 --- Comment #15 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-03-17 10:12:46 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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
