[Bug 222594] Review Request: seedit: SELinux Policy Editor

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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: seedit: SELinux Policy Editor


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222594





------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp  2007-01-26 04:20 EST -------
For -0.14:

(In reply to comment #24)
> >-------------------------------------------------------
> >  - Usually these types of requirement should be version->release
> >    dependent, i.e.
> >-------------------------------------------------------
> >Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
> >-------------------------------------------------------
> Fixed.
> >Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
> did not work("=" does not work), 
> so I used 
> Requires: %{name} >= %{version}-%{release}
What do you mean? Why equality is not valid for this package?
Theoretically, inequality admits the different version between
main package and its subpackages.

> Fixed.
Okay. Now I can correctly see seedit-gui entry.
> 
> >* Timestamps
> >  - These packages include many text files, image files
> >    and keeping timestamps on these files are generally 
> >    preferred. Please fix so that the timestamps on these
> >    files are kept.
> Fixed both spec file and Makefiles.
Still some files are installed by "install -m 755" or "cp -r",
not "install -p -m 755" or "cp -pr"

> >-------------------------------------------------------
> >auth            include         config-util
> >-------------------------------------------------------
> >  This sentence requires pam >= 0.80 so I think
> >  adding "Requires: pam >= 0.80" is preferable.
> Yes, in old pam, it does not work.
> Fixed.
For this, I think "pam >= 0.80-9" is preferable as said
in comment 23, because config-util is introduced on 0.80-9.

Nevertheless, the left issues are rather small. So:

-------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Before being sponsored:

This package will be accepted with another few work. 
But before I accept this package, someone (I am a candidate) 
must sponsor you.

Once you are sponsored, you have the right to review other 
submitters' review request and approve the packages formally. 
For this reason, the person who want to be sponsored (like you) 
are required to "show that you have an understanding 
of the process and of the packaging guidelines" as is described
on :
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/HowToGetSponsored


Usually there are two ways to show this.
A. submit other review requests with enough quality.
B. Do a "pre-review" of other person's review request
   (at the time you are not sponsored, you cannot do
   a formal review)

When you have submitted a new review request or have pre-reviewed other 
person's review request, please write the bug number on this bug report 
so that I can check your comments or review request.

Fedora Extras package review requests which are waiting for someone to review
can be checked on:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/showdependencytree.cgi?id=FE-NEW&hide_resolved=1

Review guidelines are described mainly on:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets
------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
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.