Bug 2372674 - Review Request: smbldap-tools – Samba/LDAP account management tools (revived for EPEL9)
Summary: Review Request: smbldap-tools – Samba/LDAP account management tools (revived ...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Alias: None
Product: Fedora EPEL
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: epel9
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2025-06-13 12:33 UTC by Akiyoshi Kurita
Modified: 2025-06-19 17:24 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2025-06-19 17:24:10 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

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.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.