[Bug 508954] Review Request: volume_key - An utility for manipulating storage encryption keys and passphrases

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Jul 1 17:53:44 UTC 2009


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=508954





--- Comment #6 from Miloslav Trma─Ź <mitr at redhat.com>  2009-07-01 13:53:43 EDT ---
Thanks for the review.

(In reply to comment #5)
> - Could not find libblkid-devel as BR
Provided by util-linux-ng in rawhide, see e.g.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=105530

> - you mas include the crypsetup patch via a Patch statement
I do:

| # http://code.google.com/p/cryptsetup/issues/detail?id=15
| Patch0:
https://fedorahosted.org/releases/v/o/volume_key/cryptsetup-svn-r62.patch

> - some warnings from rpmlint on binary packages
>   $ rpmlint volume_key-devel-0.2-1.x86_64.rpm 
>   volume_key-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation                     
>   1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
>   [s4504kr at zeus result]$ rpmlint python-volume_key-0.2-1.x86_64.rpm
>   python-volume_key.x86_64: W: no-documentation
>   1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
I'm afraid there really is no documentation (well, I have a sample Python
program, but not a documentation of the interface).

> - Verbatin copy of the license will no included in the %doc stanza
See the "libs" subpackage - if any subpackage is installed, volume_key-libs
will be installed as well.

> - Please remove the *.la files instead of exclude it in the %files stanza  
Why?  Does it make any difference?

-- 
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.




More information about the package-review mailing list