Bug 176943

Summary:	Review Request: rootsh : Shell wrapper for auditing
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa>
Component:	Package Review	Assignee:	Jef Spaleta <jspaleta>
Status:	CLOSED NEXTRELEASE	QA Contact:	David Lawrence <dkl>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	rawhide	CC:	fedora-extras-list
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2006-01-08 17:57:48 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 2006-01-04 16:30:17 UTC

Spec Name or Url: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/rootsh.spec
SRPM Name or Url: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/rootsh-1.5.2-1.src.rpm
Description: 
Rootsh is a wrapper for shells which logs all echoed keystrokes and
terminal output to a file and/or to syslog. Its main purpose is the
auditing of users who need a shell with root privileges. They start
rootsh through the sudo mechanism.

Comment 1 Jef Spaleta 2006-01-06 22:01:48 UTC

Okay builds in mock against development.
I'll see if I can get to the formal review tonite after battlestar.

Comment 2 Jef Spaleta 2006-01-07 04:36:45 UTC

Formal review
Summary: 1 blocker
- BAD: Forgot to include the COPYING file in the %docs section
Get that fixed and you have approval.


- GOOD: rpmlint on mock built binary returns clean.
- GOOD: package named according to the PackageNamingGuidelines.
- GOOD: The spec file name matches %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec
- GOOD: The package meets the PackagingGuidelines.
- GOOD: The package is licensed GPL
- GOOD: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
- GOOD: The spec written in American English.
- GOOD: The spec file is legible. 
- GOOD: The sources used to build matches the upstream source
        md5sum  39e3a876b991fe235af3150335d1a0f8
- GOOD: The package successfully compile and build into binary rpms on atleast x86
- GOOD: No BuildRequires and it still builds in mock
- GOOD: No locales 
- GOOD: No shared library files 
- GOOD: own all directories that it creates. uses /usr/bin/ and
/usr/share/man/man1  which are explicitly listed in the FHS and owned by
filesystem package
- GOOD: no duplicates in %files listing.
- GOOD: Permissions on files are set properly. 
- GOOD: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
- GOOD: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of PackagingGuidelines.
- GOOD: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is described
in detail in the code vs. content section of PackagingGuidelines.
- GOOD: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
properly if it is not present.

Comment 3 Tom "spot" Callaway 2006-01-07 15:18:27 UTC

COPYING added as %doc in -2:

SRPM: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/rootsh-1.5.2-2.src.rpm
SPEC: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/rootsh.spec

Comment 4 Jef Spaleta 2006-01-07 20:25:31 UTC

rootsh-1.5.2-2.src.rpm   APPROVED