[Bug 742996] Review Request: libpwquality - A library for password generation and password quality checking

[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=742996

Tomas Mraz <tmraz at redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|needinfo?(tmraz at redhat.com) |

--- Comment #2 from Tomas Mraz <tmraz at redhat.com> 2011-10-10 14:02:10 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> 
> > libpwquality-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> oh well... upstream issue
I plan to add some documentation in future. Currently the API is at least
partially documented in the comments in the public header file.

> > libpwquality.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pwscore
> > libpwquality.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pwmake
> upstream issue, however would be good to fix soonish
Yeah, I plan to add the manpage soon.

> Needs fixing:
> * Doesn't build in koji
>   At least missing BuildRequires: pam-devel
Fixed. Now I verified that it builds in mock.

> * Licensing problems/uncertainty:
>   * License field says (BSD and GPLv2+)
>   * Licensing guidelines require using "or" for dual licensing
>   * Source files allow BSD or referenced GPL (note: not GPLv2, not GPL+!)
>   * COPYING contains the same reference to GPL without v2/+, but includes
>     text of GPLv2
Fixed to 'BSD or GPL+' which is correct according to the License guidelines.

> * Source URL incorrect
Fixed.

> * Per "File and Directory Ownership" (gdm example), there should be
>   > Requires: pam
>   for {/etc,%_libdir}/security instead of relying on the automatic libpam
>   dependency.
Fixed.

> Not sure:
> * I'm not quite happy about
>   > ln -sf ../../%{_lib}/libpwquality.so.*.* libpwquality.so
>   this only works for some values of %{_libdir}.  Using an absolute symlink
>   would be more general - OTOH this is not really a concern for Fedora
I do not think we care about hypotetical or third party distributions. This is
Fedora packaging and if %{_libdir} changes significantly we will have to change
the spec probably anyway.

> * If you plan to maintain ChangeLog, please include it in %doc
There is nothing meaningful in it yet. I plan to generate more meaningful
changelog from upstream hg commits.

> Notes:
> * Unnecessary
>   > Requires(postun): /sbin/ldconfig
>   - the -p interpreter is added automatically
Removed.

> * BuildRoot: is unnecessary
Removed.

> * %global is preferred over %define
Replaced.

> * Consider using (make install ... INSTALL='install -p') to preserve timestamps
Added.
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/~tmraz/testing/libpwquality.spec
SRPM URL:
http://people.redhat.com/~tmraz/testing/libpwquality-0.9-2.fc17.src.rpm

-- 
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.