Bug 191088

Summary:	Review Request: mlsutils
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Daniel Walsh <dwalsh>
Component:	Package Review	Assignee:	Chris Ricker <chris.ricker>
Status:	CLOSED NOTABUG	QA Contact:	Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	rawhide	CC:	chris.ricker
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:	2006-05-25 18:04:18 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:

Description Daniel Walsh 2006-05-08 19:13:00 UTC

Spec URL: http://devserv.devel/~dwalsh/SELinux/mlsutils.spec
SRPM URL: http://devserv.devel/~dwalsh/SELinux/mlsutils-1.1-1.src.rpm
Description: This package contains additional tools required for MLS Conformance.  Specifically the dev_allocator which is required to replace udev.  Removable Devices need to be manually allocated by users in an MLS environment.  This tool allows for the auditing of these events.

Comment 1 Jason Tibbitts 2006-05-10 03:28:47 UTC

Those URLs aren't valid on the Internet; perhaps you're pointing at an internal
Red Hat server.  Any chance you could put these somewhere public?

Comment 2 Daniel Walsh 2006-05-11 13:54:50 UTC

Sorry about that moved them to:

Spec URL: ftp://people.redhat.com/~dwalsh/SELinux/mlsutils.spec
SRPM URL: ftp://people.redhat.com/~dwalsh/SELinux/mlsutils-1.1-1.src.rpm

Comment 3 Chris Ricker 2006-05-16 16:12:49 UTC

Actual URLs are:

ftp://people.redhat.com/dwalsh/SELinux/mlsutils.spec
ftp://people.redhat.com/dwalsh/SELinux/mlsutils-1.1-1.src.rpm

Comment 4 Chris Ricker 2006-05-16 17:42:49 UTC

Quick partial review:

- bad: rpmlint fails -- see below
- bad: package naming seems weird -- why mlsutils, and not dev_allocator?
         and why version 1.1, and not 0.5?
- not sure: spec name may or may not be good, depending on package name
- bad: some of the guidelines not met -- for example, Vendor is set
- good: license is fine
- good: license matches
- bad: license not included
- good: spec is English
- good: spec is legible
- good: source matches -- both md5sum 9aea61daf9017e800ca025b50c69ee6b
- good: package builds, once BuildRequires added
- good: no excludes
- bad: BuildRequires missing for at least:
         libxml2-devel
         libselinux-devel
         audit-libs-devel

rpmlint:

[kaboom@fc5test i386]$ rpmlint mlsutils-1.1-1.i386.rpm
W: mlsutils incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.4-2 1.1-1
W: mlsutils conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/devallocation/supported_device_classes.conf
W: mlsutils conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rc.d/init.d/dev_allocation
E: mlsutils executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/dev_allocation
E: mlsutils setuid-binary /usr/bin/dev_allocator root 04755
E: mlsutils non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/dev_allocator 04755
E: mlsutils non-executable-script /usr/share/devallocation/classes/template 0644
E: mlsutils non-executable-script /usr/share/devallocation/classes/cups 0644
E: mlsutils no-status-entry /etc/rc.d/init.d/dev_allocation
W: mlsutils no-reload-entry /etc/rc.d/init.d/dev_allocation
W: mlsutils service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/dev_allocation
W: mlsutils incoherent-init-script-name dev_allocation
[kaboom@fc5test i386]$ rpmlint mlsutils-devel-1.1-1.i386.rpm
W: mlsutils-devel no-dependency-on mlsutils
W: mlsutils-devel no-documentation
[kaboom@fc5test i386]$

Comment 5 Daniel Walsh 2006-05-25 18:04:18 UTC

Dropping this request as I have renamed the package devallocator and will
resubmit request.