Bug 187846

Summary:	Review Request: pam_keyring
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	W. Michael Petullo <redhat>
Component:	Package Review	Assignee:	Jason Tibbitts <j>
Status:	CLOSED NEXTRELEASE	QA Contact:	Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	rawhide	CC:	bnocera
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:	2006-06-14 14:32:44 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 W. Michael Petullo 2006-04-03 21:06:17 UTC

Spec Name or Url: http://flyn.org/SRPMS/pam_keyring.spec
SRPM Name or Url: http://flyn.org/SRPMS/pam_keyring-0.0.7-1.src.rpm
Description:
The pam_keyring module allows GNOME users to automatically unlock 
their default keyring using their system password when they log in. 
This allows the data in the default keyring to be used more 
transparently. Ideally, users should only every have to enter one 
password (or physical token, etc.): the password they use to 
authenticate themselves to the system when they log in.

Comment 1 Ville Skyttä 2006-04-03 21:11:03 UTC

*** Bug 187845 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 2 Jason Tibbitts 2006-06-03 01:04:26 UTC

A quick look; builds on in mock on x86_64, development.  rpmlint says:

E: pam_keyring zero-length /usr/share/doc/pam_keyring-0.0.7/FAQ
W: pam_keyring non-standard-dir-in-usr libexec

FAQ shouldn't be shipped.
The libexec warning is bogus.

This looks good enough that I might as well do a full review.  In fact, since
the only issue is the empty FAQ I'll go ahead and approve this and you can fix
it when you check in.

Review:
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.  License text included in package.
* source files match upstream:
   b50ff42708c0f49bc10d6cd16d182b39  pam_keyring-0.0.7.tar.gz
   b50ff42708c0f49bc10d6cd16d182b39  pam_keyring-0.0.7.tar.gz-srpm
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
X rpmlint has one valid complaint
* final provides and requires are sane:
   pam_keyring.so()(64bit)
   pam_keyring = 0.0.7-1
  -
   gnome-keyring >= 0.4.8
   gnome-session >= 2.10.0
   libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libgnome-keyring.so.0()(64bit)
   pam >= 0.99.3
   pam_keyring.so()(64bit)
* shared libraries are present but internal to pam
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app.

APPROVED; just don't package the empty FAQ file.

Comment 3 Jason Tibbitts 2006-06-14 14:16:00 UTC

Ping?

Comment 4 Jason Tibbitts 2006-06-14 14:32:44 UTC

Sorry for pinging; the closure of this bug got lost in the crash.  I'll close it
now.