[Bug 529269] Review Request: cmospwd - BIOS password cracker utility

[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=529269


David Nalley <david at gnsa.us> changed:

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




--- Comment #1 from David Nalley <david at gnsa.us>  2009-10-18 13:03:43 EDT ---
OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.
[ke4qqq at nalleyx60 SPECS]$ rpmlint cmospwd.spec 
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[ke4qqq at nalleyx60 SPECS]$ rpmlint ../SRPMS/cmospwd-5.0-1.fc11.src.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[ke4qqq at nalleyx60 SPECS]$ rpmlint ../RPMS/i586/cmospwd-5.0-1.fc11.i586.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[ke4qqq at nalleyx60 SPECS]$ rpmlint
../RPMS/i586/cmospwd-debuginfo-5.0-1.fc11.i586.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. 
actual source files refer to GPLv2+
OK: 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 must be included in %doc.
OK: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. 
OK: The sources used to build must match
[ke4qqq at nalleyx60 SOURCES]$ md5sum cmospwd-5.0.tar.bz2*
24c8caf61ff244dc2aae0ebfde47dd45  cmospwd-5.0.tar.bz2
24c8caf61ff244dc2aae0ebfde47dd45  cmospwd-5.0.tar.bz2.1

OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture. 

This builds successfully for x86 - see above referenced koji build

OK: If the package does not build must have Excludearch and a bug filed. 

I suppose technically a bug should be filed for all arches it doesn't build
for, but several mitigating factors apply here. BIOS is almost exclusively used
in x86(-64) and so it doesn't do any good to have it working for s390
or something similar. I asked for a sanity check in #fedora and kanarip seems
to think this is sane. sharkcz agreed but suggested a comment be added, which
you have already done. 

OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of
those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
NA: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/ is strictly forbidden.
NA: 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. 
OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
NA: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this
fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation
of that specific package.
OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a
directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that
directory. 
OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
OK: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK: Each package must consistently use macros. 
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
NA: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of
large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to
size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). 
OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly
if it is not present.
NA: Header files must be in a -devel package.
NA: Static libraries must be in a -static package. 
NA: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for
directory ownership and usability). 
NA: 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.
NA: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
NA: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built.
NA: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file
OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
OK: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. 

Thanks for the work

APPROVED

-- 
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.