Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: ksecrets - Secrets management infrastructure for KDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784849
Summary: Review Request: ksecrets - Secrets management infrastructure for KDE Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rdieter@math.unl.edu QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: ---
Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/ksecrets/ksecrets.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/ksecrets/ksecrets-4.8.0-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Secrets management infrastructure for KDE
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=784849
Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |656997(kde-reviews), | |765955(kde-4.8)
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=784849
Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alias| |ksecrets
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=784849
john5342 john5342@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |john5342@gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from john5342 john5342@gmail.com 2012-01-26 19:28:47 EST --- I have had a go with this package (actually from kde48 repo). Documentation seems scarce and the UI is a little clunky but it seems to do the essentials as expected such as doing the job of gnome-keyring.
Review to follow shortly.
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=784849
john5342 john5342@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from john5342 john5342@gmail.com 2012-01-26 19:48:43 EST --- Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated
==== C/C++ ==== [x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: MUST ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [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. [!]: MUST Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: ksecrets-4.8.0-1.fc17.i686.rpm : /usr/lib/kde4/kcm_ksecretsync.so ksecrets-4.8.0-1.fc17.i686.rpm : /usr/lib/kde4/kio_ksecretsservice.so
These are just unversioned and also not in the global libdir. Ignore
==== 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 All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [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 would be needed if support for EPEL is required [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: MUST Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using desktop- file-install file if it is a GUI application. [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 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. [-]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict. [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [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 ksecrets-4.8.0-1.fc17.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint ksecrets-devel-4.8.0-1.fc17.i686.rpm
ksecrets-devel.i686: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
ksecrets-devel requires the base package which does have documentation
rpmlint ksecrets-4.8.0-1.fc17.i686.rpm
ksecrets.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kwl2kss ksecrets.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ksecretsserviced ksecrets.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ksecrets ksecrets.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ksecretsync 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
These are unfortunate and should really have man pages but they are really more api type functions rather than end user functions. Should ideally bug upstream about getting some docs but not a showstopper in my book.
rpmlint ksecrets-debuginfo-4.8.0-1.fc17.i686.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /remotes/lockdown3/FedoraReviews/ksecrets/ksecrets-4.8.0.tar.bz2 : MD5SUM this package : fa126591e8da34e16b65ecfad9f3907a MD5SUM upstream package : fa126591e8da34e16b65ecfad9f3907a
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [!]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [?]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [-]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Issues: [!]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. Full output above but these are the only ones that are potentially worth doing something about ksecrets.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kwl2kss ksecrets.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ksecretsserviced ksecrets.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ksecrets ksecrets.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ksecretsync 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Generated by fedora-review 0.1.2 External plugins:
Should really query upstream about the 2 issues but nothing that is critical for review.
ACCEPT
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=784849
Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #3 from Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu 2012-01-27 09:20:48 EST --- thanks! mind dropping by #fedora-kde to help me answer some questions about how this is supposed to work, and if/where to add dependencies on it? do we need release notes? those kind of things...
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: ksecrets Short Description: Secrets management infrastructure for KDE Owners: than rdieter jreznik ltinkl rnovacek kkofler Branches: f16
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=784849
--- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com 2012-01-27 09:33:28 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
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=784849
Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2012-01-27 10:15:32
--- Comment #5 from Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu 2012-01-27 10:15:32 EST --- imported
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=784849
--- Comment #6 from john5342 john5342@gmail.com 2012-01-27 10:45:53 EST --- (In reply to comment #3)
thanks! mind dropping by #fedora-kde to help me answer some questions about how this is supposed to work
My vpn is blocking IRC at the moment.
Basically ksecrets implements an open, dbus based, protocol for password storage. This is also the same one that gnome-keyring uses. So if you use any Gnome based apps that require password storage then ksecrets should jump in rather than gnome-keyring (i believe the deamon only runs in KDE so it shouldn't affect gnome users). I was under the impression from the scarce documentation that for the Gnome and KDE being stored in one unified place with one storage password.
Unfortunately it seems my testing results were a little premature. I used kwl2kss to migrate from kwallet to ksecrets (i don't think this is supposed to be needed though), ran a couple of Gnome apps such as Epiphany (i don't use it normally but the easiest way to test), stored a couple of passwords in it, closed and opened Epiphany a couple of times to check it could retrieve the passwords and was using ksecrets rather than gnome-keyring, checked that Kde apps could fetch theirs and figured all was well.
When i started this morning i found ksecrets was trying to create new storage all over again. Not had a chance to figure out why yet. In short it sounds promising but perhaps not quite as close to prime time as i was lead to believe...
, and if/where to add dependencies on it?
Dependencies... i imagine when it is working properly in the same places as kwallet. It is in the long run supposedly going to replace kwallet (more unified, more features such as synchronization etc).
do we need release notes? those kind of things...
Once it is working there shouldn't be any needed.
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=784849
--- Comment #7 from Kevin Kofler kevin@tigcc.ticalc.org 2012-01-27 12:21:28 EST --- I wonder whether it wouldn't have been better to include this in the kdelibs SRPM, to avoid having to add dependencies everywhere, just like with kate-part (which got split despite my objections, causing issues like bug #744443, and I'm not even sure all of those are fixed yet).
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla