[Bug 691818] Review Request: openpts - TCG Platform Trust Service (PTS) for embedded devices

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Apr 4 16:27:40 UTC 2011


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=691818

Miloslav Trmač <mitr at redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
               Flag|                            |needinfo?(avagarwa at redhat.c
                   |                            |om)

--- Comment #1 from Miloslav Trmač <mitr at redhat.com> 2011-04-04 12:27:39 EDT ---
blockers:

* Package doesn't build in mock/koji:
> + autoreconf -fv --install
> autoreconf: Entering directory `.'
> autoreconf: running: autopoint --force
> Can't exec "autopoint": Permission denied at /usr/share/autoconf/Autom4te/FileUtils.pm line 345.
> autoreconf: failed to run autopoint: Permission denied
> autoreconf: autopoint is needed because this package uses Gettext
  This might only be a missing BuildRequires on gettext*, see below...

* > openpts.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/locale/ja/LC_MESSAGES/openpts.mo
  Use the %find_lang macro for translations, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Handling_Locale_Files

* Source0: points to a HTML page.
  If it is possible to use something similar to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Sourceforge.net to get a
direct URL to the tarball, this should be done.  This problem is not a blocker
if no such option exists, obviously.

* Is there a reason for the explicit "Requires: trousers openssl"?
  rpm seems to be able to correctly add automatic dependencies.  If these
  requirements are necessary, please add a comment (per
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires )

* Requires(preun, post, postun) for scriptlets are missing, see
 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SysVInitScript#Initscripts_in_spec_file_scriptlets

* It seems the default configuration uses /var/lib/openpts.  If so, shouldn't
  the directory be owned by the package?

* /usr/share/openpts and /usr/share/openpts/models should be owned
  by the package.

non-blockers:
> openpts.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openpts
> openpts.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tpm_createkey
> openpts.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ptscd
> openpts.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rm2dot
> openpts.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary uml2dot
> openpts.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ir2text
> openpts.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary iml2aide
> openpts.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary iml2text
It would be nice to have man pages, but writing them is primarily upstream's
responsibility, having man pages is not a requirement.

* Including the documenation from doc/ would probably be useful to users.
  Please also consider including ChangeLog in %doc.

> openpts.x86_64: W: incoherent-init-script-name ptscd ('openpts', 'openptsd')
Something to consider... but not a hard requirement IMHO.

* The parenthesized abbreviations in %description look a little strange to me:
  They are not used anywhere else, so they are rather superfluous - especially
  the PoC abbreviation.  This purely a matter of taste, of course.

* The correct macro for /etc/init.d is _initddir, not _initrddir.

* For consistency, consider using _/sbin/_chkconfig in %post

* The initscript should probably exit with 2, not 3, on invalid command name
  (per the example in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SysVInitScript )

* Consider using (cp -p) and (make install DESTDIR=... INSTALL='install -p')
  in %install to preserve timestamps

*
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment

-- 
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