[Bug 678727] Review Request: pam_afs_session - AFS PAG and AFS tokens on login (sponsor requested)

[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=678727

Steve Traylen <steve.traylen at cern.ch> changed:

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

--- Comment #13 from Steve Traylen <steve.traylen at cern.ch> 2011-03-13 04:17:09 EDT ---
- Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
It does, pam module ones in particular.
- Spec file matches base package name.
Yes
- Spec has consistant macro usage.
Yes.
- Meets Packaging Guidelines.
Yes
- License
MIT
- License field in spec matches
The LICENSE file is very verbose in specifying all 
the various copy rights but yes it seems to MIT.
- License file included in package
Yes
- Spec in American English
Yes
- Spec is legible.
Yes
- Sources match upstream md5sum:
$ md5sum pam-afs-session-2.2.tar.gz ../SOURCES/pam-afs-session-2.2.tar.g
5621adc56319582b71b61546face4409  pam-afs-session-2.2.tar.gz
5621adc56319582b71b61546face4409  ../SOURCES/pam-afs-session-2.2.tar.gz

- Package needs ExcludeArch
It does not
- BuildRequires correct
Yes.
- Spec handles locales/find_lang
Not  present.
- Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
Not relocatable.
- Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
They are.
- Package has a correct %clean section.
Yes
- Package has correct buildroot
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
- Package is code or permissible content.
Yes.
- Doc subpackage needed/used.
Not needed.
- Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
They don't
- Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
Not needed.
- Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
Not needed.
- .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig
Not needed
- .so files in -devel subpackage.
Not needed.
- -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
- .la files are removed.
They are.
- Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
No gui
- Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
See koji.
- Package has no duplicate files in %files.
No
- Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
/lib/security is pulled in via pam which is required - good.
- Package owns all the directories it creates.
- No rpmlint output.

pam_afs_session.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US afs -> ads, as,
oafs
pam_afs_session-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) afs -> ads,
as, oafs
pam_afs_session-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US afs
-> ads, as, oafs
pam_afs_session.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US afs -> ads, as,
oafs

- final provides and requires are sane:

$ rpm -qp --provides pam_afs_session-2.2-2.x86_64.rpm 
pam_afs_session.so()(64bit)  
pam_afs_session = 2.2-2
pam_afs_session(x86-64) = 2.2-2

$ rpm -qp --requires pam_afs_session-2.2-2.x86_64.rpm  | grep -v rpm | grep -v
libc
libk5crypto.so.3()(64bit)  
libkrb5.so.3()(64bit)  
libkrb5.so.3(krb5_3_MIT)(64bit)  
libpam.so.0()(64bit)  
libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_1.0)(64bit)  
libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_EXTENSION_1.0)(64bit)  
libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_MODUTIL_1.0)(64bit)  
pam_krb5  


SHOULD Items:

- Should build in mock.
See koji.
- Should build on all supported archs
See koji
- Should function as described.
Not checked.
- Should have sane scriptlets.
None
- Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.
Not relavent.
- Should have dist tag
Yes
- Should package latest version
Yes
- check for outstanding bugs on package. 
Issues:


All seems good. APPROVED.

Steve.

-- 
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.