[Bug 555843] Review Request: pam_radius - PAM Module for RADIUS Authentication

Mon Feb 22 00:47:15 UTC 2010

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=555843

--- Comment #13 from Christoph Wickert <cwickert at fedoraproject.org> 2010-02-21 19:47:08 EST ---
You should always increase the release, even during review, so it's easier to
avoid this kind of problems. But never mind, here we go. Sorry it took so long.

Review for 1533c274d7313ce1f54421a444485333  pam_radius-1.3.17-1.fc12.src.rpm

OK - MUST: $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/pam_radius-*
pam_radius.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pam -> map, Pam, pan
pam_radius.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pam -> map, Pam, pan
pam_radius-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pam -> map, Pam,
pan
pam_radius-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pam ->
map, Pam, pan
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

All these warnings are save to ignore.

OK - MUST: named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
OK - MUST: spec file name matches the base package %{name}
OK - MUST: package meets the Packaging Guidelines
OK - MUST: Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines: GPLv2+
OK - MUST: License field in spec file matches the actual license
OK - MUST: license file included in %doc
OK - MUST: spec is in American English
OK - MUST: spec is legible
OK - MUST: sources match the upstream source by MD5
a5d27ccbaaad9d9fb254b01a3c12bd06
OK - MUST: successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on x86_64
N/A - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
OK - MUST: all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
N/A - MUST: handles locales properly with %find_lang
N/A - 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.
OK - MUST: Package does not bundle copies of system libraries.
N/A - MUST: 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 - MUST: owns all directories that it creates
OK - MUST: no duplicate files in the %files listing
OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly, includes %defattr(...)
OK - MUST: package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}.
OK - MUST: consistently uses macros
OK - MUST: package contains code, or permissable content
N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage
OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application
N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package
N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package
N/A - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires:
pkgconfig'.
OK - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix, then library
files that end in .so must go in a -devel package (the package does have a lib
without suffix, but pam modules usually are not versioned, so this is ok)
N/A - MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully
versioned dependency
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives.
N/A - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file.
OK - MUST: package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
OK - MUST: at the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot}.
OK - MUST: all filenames valid UTF-8

SHOULD Items:
OK - SHOULD: Source package includes license text(s) as a separate file.
N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
OK - SHOULD: builds in mock.
OK - SHOULD: compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
OK - SHOULD: functions as described.
N/A - SHOULD: Scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
N/A - SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg
N/A - SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin,
/sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the
file instead of the file itself.

Other items:
OK - latest stable version
OK - SourceURL valid
OK - Compiler flags ok
OK - Debuginfo complete
OK - timestamps preserved during %install

Issues:
- %description should end with a dot

- Patches should comments: a comment what they do, where you got them from (e.
g. upstream's vcs or a bug tracker) or if they are specific to Fedora.

- pam_radius.conf should be 0600, ignore the warning that rpmlint will give. I
would prefer using install to set the mode over attr, but this is up to you.

- What exactly is your motivation to change the name of the config file?
Consistency? The dir ownership of /etc/raddb? Ether way, you should patch
INSTALL and pam_radius.conf to to contain the right path.

-- 
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.