[Bug 807476] Review Request:ima-evm-utils -IMA/EVM support utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807476

Hanns-Joachim Uhl  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1384450



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 807476] Review Request:ima-evm-utils -IMA/EVM support utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807476

Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
  Flags|needinfo?(pwouters@redhat.c |
   |om) |
Last Closed||2014-07-12 09:34:28



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 807476] Review Request:ima-evm-utils -IMA/EVM support utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807476

Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||pwout...@redhat.com
  Flags||needinfo?(pwouters@redhat.c
   ||om)



--- Comment #12 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
Please package 0.6 when you are free.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 807476] Review Request:ima-evm-utils -IMA/EVM support utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807476

Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



-- 
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 807476] Review Request:ima-evm-utils -IMA/EVM support utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807476

Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||cicku...@gmail.com



--- Comment #11 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
NEWS?

ping.

-- 
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 807476] Review Request:ima-evm-utils -IMA/EVM support utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807476

--- Comment #10 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org ---
0.3 is tagged in git since 2 months, they do still consider it as not released
?

-- 
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 807476] Review Request:ima-evm-utils -IMA/EVM support utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807476

--- Comment #9 from Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com ---
the upstream git now shows COPYING containing proper information, but it is a
little unclear whether or not they released 0.3. I've asked for confirmation,
and will update it here when 0.3 is considered released.

-- 
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 807476] Review Request:ima-evm-utils -IMA/EVM support utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807476

--- Comment #8 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org ---
There is no license shipped with it ( since empty COPYING was removed ) , I am
not very confortable with that, and I am not sure if you need to include it or
not :/

Otherwise it look good.
( and sorry again for not answering earlier )

-- 
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 807476] Review Request:ima-evm-utils -IMA/EVM support utilities

[bugzilla]

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=807476

--- Comment #7 from Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com 2012-05-09 15:16:35 EDT 
---
Spec URL: ftp://ftp.nohats.ca/ima/ima-evm-utils.spec
SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.nohats.ca/ima/ima-evm-utils-0.2-2.fc17.src.rpm

That resolves all issues you mentioned,

-- 
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 807476] Review Request:ima-evm-utils -IMA/EVM support utilities

[bugzilla]

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=807476

--- Comment #6 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org 2012-04-17 16:10:55 EDT ---
Sorry, was swamped at work.

Since the package is not for EL5 ( i assume kernel would not support it ), I
think you should remove BuildRoot, and %defattr ( that's cleaner to remove
boilerplate, IMHO )

As evm-utils was not in Fedora, I also think the Obsoletes/Provides could be
removed ( I am a cleaning freak, I know ).

COPYING is empty, you should ask upstream to have the complete license.

If NEWS is empty, I think it not needed to ship it.

For the rest, here is the review :

Package Review
==

Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated



 C/C++ 
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.


 Generic 
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
 least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[!]: MUST Buildroot is not present
 Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
 Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm  4.4
 Note: defattr() present in %files section. This is OK if packaging
 for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
 Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Licenses found: *No copyright* UNKNOWN, LGPL (v2.1)  For
 detailed output of licensecheck see file:
 /home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/src/807476/licensecheck.txt
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.

rpmlint ima-evm-utils-0.2-1.fc18.i686.rpm

ima-evm-utils.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime - run
time, run-time, rudiment
ima-evm-utils.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US executables -
executable, executable s, executrices
ima-evm-utils.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unauthorised -
unauthorized, authorized
ima-evm-utils.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem - file
system, file-system, systemically
ima-evm-utils.i686: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/ima-evm-utils-0.2/COPYING
ima-evm-utils.i686: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/ima-evm-utils-0.2/NEWS
ima-evm-utils.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary evmctl
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings.


rpmlint ima-evm-utils-debuginfo-0.2-1.fc18.i686.rpm

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.


rpmlint ima-evm-utils-0.2-1.fc18.src.rpm

ima-evm-utils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime - run time,
run-time, rudiment
ima-evm-utils.src: W: spelling-error 

[Bug 807476] Review Request:ima-evm-utils -IMA/EVM support utilities

[bugzilla]

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=807476

--- Comment #5 from Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com 2012-04-16 17:41:01 EDT 
---
ping?

-- 
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 807476] Review Request:ima-evm-utils -IMA/EVM support utilities

[bugzilla]

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=807476

Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request:evm-utils|Review
   |-IMA/EVM support utilities  |Request:ima-evm-utils
   ||-IMA/EVM support utilities

-- 
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