[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Jun 7 06:49:24 UTC 2007
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: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556
notting at redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |notting at redhat.com
------- Additional Comments From notting at redhat.com 2007-06-07 02:49 EST -------
MUST items:
- Package meets naming and packaging guidelines - OK
- Spec file matches base package name. - OK
- Spec has consistant macro usage. - OK
- Meets Packaging Guidelines. - OK
- License - OK
- License field in spec matches - OK
- License file included in package - OK
- Spec in American English - OK
- Spec is legible. - OK
- Sources match upstream md5sum: - OK
- Package needs ExcludeArch - OK
- BuildRequires correct - OK
- Spec handles locales/find_lang - N/A
- Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. - N/A
- Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. - OK
- Package has a correct %clean section. - OK
- Package has correct buildroot - OK
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
- Package is code or permissible content. - OK
- Doc subpackage needed/used. - N/A
- Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. - OK
- Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. - OK
- Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun - OK
- .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig - N/A
- .so files in -devel subpackage. - OK
- -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - OK
- .la files are removed. - OK
- Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file - N/A
- Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. - OK
- Package has no duplicate files in %files. - OK
- Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. - OK
- Package owns all the directories it creates. - OK
- No rpmlint output. ***
E: ecryptfs-utils binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /sbin/mount.ecryptfs ['/usr/lib64']
E: ecryptfs-utils binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /lib64/security/pam_ecryptfs.so
['/usr/lib64']
E: ecryptfs-utils binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/ecryptfsd ['/usr/lib64']
E: ecryptfs-utils binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/ecryptfs-manager
['/usr/lib64']
- final provides and requires are sane: ***
Main package has:
Requires: keyutils openssl pam kernel >= 2.6.19
1) keyutils, openssl, pam requirements should be superfluous - library
dependencies take care of this
2) kernel requires are tricky. Generally, we do
Conflicts: kernel < 2.6.19
as there's no reason, for example, to pull a kernel into a buildroot.
SHOULD Items:
- Should build in mock. - OK (tried x86_64)
- Should build on all supported archs - build i386 non-mock
- Should function as described. - mounted FS successfully
- Should have sane scriptlets. - OK
- Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. - OK
- Should have dist tag - OK
- Should package latest version - build checks were done with 16, even though
15 was here :)
MISC item:
So, general sanity checking:
/lib/security/pam_ecryptfs.so:
linux-gate.so.1 => (0x00e9e000)
... libdl.so.2 => /lib/libdl.so.2 (0x006a6000)
libecryptfs.so.0 => /usr/lib/libecryptfs.so.0 (0x00b11000)
libgcrypt.so.11 => /usr/lib/libgcrypt.so.11 (0x007c4000)
...
libgpg-error.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgpg-error.so.0 (0x0056f000)
/sbin/mount.ecryptfs:
linux-gate.so.1 => (0x00397000)
libgpg-error.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgpg-error.so.0 (0x038a8000)
libecryptfs.so.0 => /usr/lib/libecryptfs.so.0 (0x008eb000)
...
libgcrypt.so.11 => /usr/lib/libgcrypt.so.11 (0x03e3a000)
That's bad; these shouldn't be linked against things in /usr/lib. (Yes, some
people still run /usr separate.) Moreover, I suspect that both of these will
also dlopen the plugins in $(libdir)/ecryptfs?
-devel: what, if anything, will ever build against this? If there's nothing, it
may not be worth shipping. (Also,does this package maintain a stable ABI?)
--
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.
More information about the package-review
mailing list