https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855283
Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855283
Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m...@zarb.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855283
Jason A. Donenfeld ja...@zx2c4.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ja...@zx2c4.com
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855283
--- Comment #2 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu ---
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
--- Comment #3 from Jason A. Donenfeld ja...@zx2c4.com ---
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855283
--- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu ---
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855283
--- Comment #5 from Christophe Fergeau cferg...@redhat.com ---
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855283
--- Comment #6 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org ---
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855283
--- Comment #7 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org ---
Mhh, forget, pwgen is there
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855283
--- Comment #8 from Luis Bazan bazanlui...@gmail.com ---
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855283
--- Comment #9 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org ---
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855283
--- Comment #10 from Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr ---
(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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855283
--- Comment #11 from Christophe Fergeau cferg...@redhat.com ---
(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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855283
--- Comment #12 from Jason A. Donenfeld ja...@zx2c4.com ---
(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
21,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855283
--- Comment #13 from Jason A. Donenfeld ja...@zx2c4.com ---
(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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855283
--- Comment #14 from Jason A. Donenfeld ja...@zx2c4.com ---
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.
___
16 matches
Mail list logo
