Bug 2372674

Summary: Review Request: smbldap-tools – Samba/LDAP account management tools (revived for EPEL9)
Product: [Fedora] Fedora EPEL Reporter: Akiyoshi Kurita <akito5623>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: epel9CC: carl, package-review
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: ---
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2025-06-19 17:24:10 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Akiyoshi Kurita 2025-06-13 12:33:54 UTC
Spec and SRPM are available at:

https://github.com/redadmin-k/smbldap-tools-almalinux9

Previously retired from Fedora/EPEL.  
This submission revives it for EPEL9 with updated spec and tested rebuild.

Akiyoshi Kurita

Comment 1 Fedora Review Service 2025-06-13 12:33:59 UTC
The ticket summary is not in the correct format.
Expected:

    Review Request: <main package name here> - <short summary here>

Found:

    Review Request: smbldap-tools – Samba/LDAP account management tools (revived for EPEL9)

As a consequence, the package name cannot be parsed and submitted to
be automatically build. Please modify the ticket summary and trigger a
build by typing [fedora-review-service-build].


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 2 Akiyoshi Kurita 2025-06-15 11:55:03 UTC
There are no known active CVEs related to smbldap-tools as of June 2025.

While upstream is inactive, the tool remains functionally useful in production systems—especially for legacy Samba + LDAP deployments in EL-based environments (e.g., AlmaLinux, Rocky). We are using it internally and have confirmed expected behavior.

If upstream remains inactive, I am willing to maintain the package within EPEL.

Comment 3 Akiyoshi Kurita 2025-06-15 11:58:57 UTC
[fedora-review-service-build]

Comment 4 Akiyoshi Kurita 2025-06-15 12:03:26 UTC
There are no known active CVEs related to Amanda as of June 2025.

The software is still in use in some educational and research environments as a backup solution.  
This package has been rebuilt and tested for EPEL10 (AlmaLinux 10), and we are using it internally.

I am willing to maintain the package within EPEL if upstream remains inactive.

Comment 5 Akiyoshi Kurita 2025-06-15 12:08:54 UTC
Correction: Comment 4 contains Amanda-related information and was posted here by mistake. Please disregard it.

Comment 6 Akiyoshi Kurita 2025-06-16 04:57:26 UTC
NOTE: This package depends on `perl-Crypt-SmbHash`, which has been submitted separately for review as Bug #2372XXX.

Please see:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372XXX

This Perl module is required for password management functionality (e.g., smbldap-passwd), and should be reviewed together with smbldap-tools.

Comment 7 Akiyoshi Kurita 2025-06-16 05:40:27 UTC
NOTE: This package depends on `perl-Crypt-SmbHash`, which is under review in Bug #2372951:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372951

This Perl module provides the required LAN Manager and NT hash functions used in tools such as `smbldap-passwd`.

Both packages are intended to be reviewed together, as `smbldap-tools` will not function correctly without this dependency.

Comment 8 Akiyoshi Kurita 2025-06-16 05:49:22 UTC
To Bugzilla Admin:

Please delete the following comments from this ticket to avoid confusion:

- Comment 4: This contains incorrect content related to Amanda and was posted in error.
- Comment 6: This includes an invalid placeholder Bug ID before the correct dependency (Bug #2372951) was assigned.

The correct information is already provided in Comment 5 and Comment 7 respectively.

Thank you for your help.

Comment 9 Carl George 🤠 2025-06-19 17:24:10 UTC
Package reviews are not the correct way to request Fedora packages be added to EPEL.  You've already been provided instructions for how to do this properly in several other locations.  Please take the time to read those instructions and stop excessively replying with AI-generated nonsense.