[Bug 487296] Review Request: sssd - System Security Services Daemon

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487296





--- Comment #6 from Simo Sorce <ssorce at redhat.com>  2009-03-04 10:58:55 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> rpmlint output:
> sssd.i386: W: no-documentation
> sssd.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/sssd/libsss_proxy.so
> sssd.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/sssd/libsss_ldap.so

This are share dmodules private to sssd, and are not versioned.
I would ignore this warning at the moment unless there is some rule in fedora
that prevents upstream from managing its private libs the way it wants to :-)

> MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
> provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
> upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
> Guidelines for how to deal with this.

If necessary I can make a quick alpha release, you tell me.

> MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
> files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
> call ldconfig in %post and %postun.

Those libraries are private and dlopen()ed at run time, they are not supposed
to be seen by the linker.

> MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
> then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel
> package.

We do not have a suffix :)

> 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.

My fault, I'll add a COPYING file asap

-- 
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.