[Bug 2239242] New: Review Request: fedora-ima - IMA policies and configuration files

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2239242

            Bug ID: 2239242
           Summary: Review Request: fedora-ima - IMA policies and
                    configuration files
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
          Hardware: All
                OS: Linux
            Status: NEW
         Component: Package Review
          Severity: medium
          Priority: medium
          Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
          Reporter: coxu(a)redhat.com
        QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
                CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
    Classification: Fedora



Spec URL: https://coiby.fedorapeople.org/fedora-ima.spec
SRPM URL: fedora-ima-0.1-1.fc40.src.rpm
Description: This package contains IMA sample policies and enable the dracut
integrity module to make it easier to load IMA keys and policies.
Fedora Account System Username: coiby


-- 
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2239242

Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

[Bug 2239242] Review Request: fedora-ima - IMA policies and configuration files

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2239242

Petr Menšík <pemensik(a)redhat.com&gt; changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |pemensik(a)redhat.com



--- Comment #1 from Petr Menšík <pemensik(a)redhat.com&gt; ---
It is quite unusual to have a package without upstream URL. Why is this package
a separate source if it does not have any upstream repository? Wouldn't it make
sense to create fedora-specific subpackage to any package it is related to?

It does not explain what IMA stands for, which packages use it and for what
exactly. I think at least README.md with a bit more descriptive text how and
for what this is used would be useful. Especially with some links to more
detailed page. Would a good candidate be [1]?

I think all files installed into /etc should have %config(noreplace) added to
them, unless very special case.

The spec lacks %prep section, where %autosetup should be present. I think it
expands it into long description, which should not be done.

I would say if this package does not have any upstream, it should have version
0 only. Release incrementals should be enough, until some upstream archive is
used with any version assigned to it.

1. https://sourceforge.net/p/linux-ima/wiki/Home/


-- 
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2239242

Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

[Bug 2239242] Review Request: fedora-ima - IMA policies and configuration files

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2239242

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl&gt; changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl



--- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl&gt; ---
Also, since there's no upstream, and the srpm link is not provided, it's not
really possible to review the contents :(


-- 
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2239242

Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...