[Bug 784849] New: Review Request: ksecrets - Secrets management infrastructure for KDE

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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(a)fedoraproject.org
        ReportedBy: rdieter(a)math.unl.edu
         QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
                CC: notting(a)redhat.com,
                    package-review(a)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

-- 
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.

[Bug 784849] Review Request: ksecrets - Secrets management infrastructure for KDE

[Red Hat 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=784849

Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu&gt; changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Blocks|                            |656997(kde-reviews),
                   |                            |765955(kde-4.8)

-- 
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.

[Bug 784849] Review Request: ksecrets - Secrets management infrastructure for KDE

[Red Hat 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=784849

Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu&gt; changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Alias|                            |ksecrets

-- 
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.

[Bug 784849] Review Request: ksecrets - Secrets management infrastructure for KDE

[Red Hat 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=784849

john5342 <john5342(a)gmail.com&gt; changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org    |john5342(a)gmail.com
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #1 from john5342 <john5342(a)gmail.com&gt; 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.

-- 
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.

[Bug 784849] Review Request: ksecrets - Secrets management infrastructure for KDE

[Red Hat 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=784849

john5342 <john5342(a)gmail.com&gt; changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #2 from john5342 <john5342(a)gmail.com&gt; 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

-- 
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.

[Bug 784849] Review Request: ksecrets - Secrets management infrastructure for KDE

[Red Hat 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=784849

Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu&gt; changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #3 from Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu&gt; 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

-- 
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.

[Bug 784849] Review Request: ksecrets - Secrets management infrastructure for KDE

[Red Hat 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=784849

--- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-01-27 09:33:28 EST ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).

-- 
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.

[Bug 784849] Review Request: ksecrets - Secrets management infrastructure for KDE

[Red Hat 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=784849

Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu&gt; changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |CLOSED
         Resolution|                            |RAWHIDE
        Last Closed|                            |2012-01-27 10:15:32

--- Comment #5 from Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu&gt; 2012-01-27 10:15:32 EST ---
imported

-- 
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.

[Bug 784849] Review Request: ksecrets - Secrets management infrastructure for KDE

[Red Hat 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=784849

--- Comment #6 from john5342 <john5342(a)gmail.com&gt; 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.

-- 
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.

[Bug 784849] Review Request: ksecrets - Secrets management infrastructure for KDE

[Red Hat 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=784849

--- Comment #7 from Kevin Kofler <kevin(a)tigcc.ticalc.org&gt; 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).

-- 
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.