Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: pam_keyring


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187846


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
          QAContact|fedora-extras-              |fedora-package-
                   |[EMAIL PROTECTED]             |[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163779
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-06-02 21:04 EST -------
A quick look; builds on in mock on x86_64, development.  rpmlint says:

E: pam_keyring zero-length /usr/share/doc/pam_keyring-0.0.7/FAQ
W: pam_keyring non-standard-dir-in-usr libexec

FAQ shouldn't be shipped.
The libexec warning is bogus.

This looks good enough that I might as well do a full review.  In fact, since
the only issue is the empty FAQ I'll go ahead and approve this and you can fix
it when you check in.

Review:
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.  License text included in package.
* source files match upstream:
   b50ff42708c0f49bc10d6cd16d182b39  pam_keyring-0.0.7.tar.gz
   b50ff42708c0f49bc10d6cd16d182b39  pam_keyring-0.0.7.tar.gz-srpm
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
X rpmlint has one valid complaint
* final provides and requires are sane:
   pam_keyring.so()(64bit)
   pam_keyring = 0.0.7-1
  -
   gnome-keyring >= 0.4.8
   gnome-session >= 2.10.0
   libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libgnome-keyring.so.0()(64bit)
   pam >= 0.99.3
   pam_keyring.so()(64bit)
* shared libraries are present but internal to pam
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app.

APPROVED; just don't package the empty FAQ file.

-- 
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

Reply via email to