Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 187846
Review Request: pam_keyring
Last modified: 2007-11-30 17:11:29 EST
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
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.
*** Bug 187845 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
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.
* 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:
* 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 = 0.0.7-1
gnome-keyring >= 0.4.8
gnome-session >= 2.10.0
pam >= 0.99.3
* 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.
Sorry for pinging; the closure of this bug got lost in the crash. I'll close it