Bug 165892

Summary:	Review Request: xsupplicant
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa>
Component:	Package Review	Assignee:	José Matos <jamatos>
Status:	CLOSED NEXTRELEASE	QA Contact:	David Lawrence <dkl>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	rawhide	CC:	fedora-package-review
Target Milestone:	---	Keywords:	Reopened
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
URL:	http://www.open1x.org/
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2006-08-29 09:01:21 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	163779

Description Tom "spot" Callaway 2005-08-13 17:45:15 UTC

Spec Name or Url: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/xsupplicant.spec
SRPM Name or Url: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/xsupplicant-1.2-0.1.pre1.src.rpm
Description: 
This software allows a GNU/Linux or BSD workstation to authenticate with
a RADIUS server using 802.1x and various EAP protocols.  The intended
use is for computers with wireless LAN connections to complete a strong
authentication before joining the network.

Comment 1 José Matos 2005-08-19 15:59:25 UTC

I have followed the link to sourceforge and I only find the the 1.2 version. 
 
If you redo the package for 1.2 I will review the package. 
 
FWIW, the spec file looks perfect. :-)

Comment 2 Tom "spot" Callaway 2005-08-19 16:16:15 UTC

Sneaky, sneaky. They haven't updated their website yet. :)

New SRPM:  http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/xsupplicant-1.2-1.src.rpm

New SPEC: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/xsupplicant.spec

Comment 3 José Matos 2005-08-19 18:17:12 UTC

+ package builds in mock for x86_64  
+ rpmlint check  
  rpmlint xsupplicant-1.2-1.fc4.x86_64.rpm  
E: xsupplicant non-readable /etc/xsupplicant.conf 0600  
  
  (clearly here rpmlint is wrong, xsupplicant configuration should not be  
public)  
  
+ package follows name convention and the spec file is correctly named  
+ no locales, libraries, subpackages, pkgconfigs etc. to worry about  
+ not relocatable  
+ no directory ownership or permissions issues  
+ no duplicate files  
+ the license is correct (GPL) and it ships in the package  
+ the spec file is in English and it is readable  
+ the source file is the same as upstream (sha1sum agrees)  
+ build requires are correct (*)  
  
So the package is APPROVED.  
  
(*) Is the any special reason to require byacc and not bison? I am just  
curious. :-)

Comment 4 Tom "spot" Callaway 2005-08-19 18:55:56 UTC

No reason. In fact, I'll change it to bison before I commit.

Comment 5 José Matos 2006-08-29 08:55:32 UTC

Reopening bug to fix assignee.

Comment 6 José Matos 2006-08-29 09:01:21 UTC

Assignee fixed, closing again.