Bug 624705 - Review Request: pam_script - execute scripts from within pam
Summary: Review Request: pam_script - execute scripts from within pam
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Marcelo Moreira de Mello
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2010-08-17 14:32 UTC by Marcus Moeller
Modified: 2013-07-11 06:09 UTC (History)
8 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-05-06 12:41:10 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
mmello: fedora-review?


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Marcus Moeller 2010-08-17 14:32:09 UTC
Spec URL: http://www.marcus-moeller.de/share/build/pam_script/1.1.4-3/pam_script.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.marcus-moeller.de/share/build/pam_script/1.1.4-3/pam_script-1.1.4-3.fc12.src.rpm
Description: pam_script is a module which allows to execute scripts e.g. after opening and/or closing a session using PAM

rpmlint SRPMS/pam_script-1.1.4-3.fc12.src.rpm RPMS/i686/pam_script-1.1.4-3.fc12.i686.rpm  RPMS/i686/pam_script-debuginfo-1.1.4-3.fc12.i686.rpm SPECS/pam_script.spec 
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Comment 1 Steve Traylen 2010-08-25 07:27:26 UTC
Taking.

Comment 2 Marcus Moeller 2010-08-25 07:38:21 UTC
Just a note. If we want to integrate it in Fedora I guess the SELinux rules have to be included within the default targeted policy. Otherwhise I have to add a:

Requires:       selinux-policy-targeted

Greets
Marcus

Comment 3 Steve Traylen 2010-08-30 18:59:19 UTC
Hi Marcus, sorry for the slowness from me.

I'm afraid a mock fails to build. f15-x86_64.

+ cp -pr AUTHORS COPYING ChangeLog README NEWS etc/README.module_types etc/README.pam_script /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/pam_script-1.1.4-3.fc15.x86_64/usr/share/doc/pam_script-1.1.4
+ exit 0
RPM build errors:
    File not found by glob: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/pam_script-1.1.4-3.fc15.x86_64/lib64/security/*
Child returncode was: 1
EXCEPTION: Command failed. See logs for output.
 # ['bash', '--login', '-c', 'rpmbuild -bb --target x86_64 --nodeps builddir/build/SPECS/pam_script.spec']
Traceback (most recent call last):


At a guess lib vs lib64 problem.

Comment 4 Steve Traylen 2010-11-23 17:18:14 UTC
Ping.

Comment 5 Steve Traylen 2011-03-13 08:34:55 UTC
Build still fails with same error, removing myself from review and updating white board to reflect.
Please update whiteboard on fix.
Steve.

Comment 6 Marcus Moeller 2011-03-13 08:42:03 UTC
Sorry for not responding earlier. Going to check that next week and report back.

Comment 10 Anders Blomdell 2011-06-01 18:18:09 UTC
Shouldn't:

BuildRequires:  /usr/share/selinux/devel/policyhelp

be replaced (or augmented with, if it is likely to change package) with:

BuildRequires:   selinux-policy-doc

Comment 11 Marcus Moeller 2011-08-04 07:24:08 UTC
http://www.marcus-moeller.de/share/build/pam_script/1.1.4-9/pam_script.spec
SRPM URL:
http://www.marcus-moeller.de/share/build/pam_script/1.1.4-9/pam_script-1.1.4-9.fc14.src.rpm

Updated to require selinux-policy-doc.

Still in need for review ;)

Comment 14 Marcelo Moreira de Mello 2012-04-18 04:15:26 UTC
 Hello Marcus, 

   I'm reviewing your package.
 
 Best Regards, 
mmello

Comment 15 Marcelo Moreira de Mello 2012-04-19 19:59:31 UTC
  Hello Marcus, 
  
     Reviewing your package I have some points that might be adjusted: 
     
     We prefer libs being placed into /usr/lib64 instead /lib64 to avoid problems for versioned libs. 
     
     # rpm -qpl ../RPMS/x86_64/pam_script-1.1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm
{..SNIP..}
/lib64/security/pam_script.so
{..SNIP..}

[!]: MUST Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if
     present.
     Note: pam_script-1.1.5-1.fc18.i686.rpm : /lib/security/pam_script.so
          
    Although in this case, it looks good to me the location for pam_script.so since on /lib64/security we usually don't have versioned libs. 
    
    
    Issues:
[!]: MUST Buildroot is not present
     Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
     
       Do you want this package be available on EPEL5? If you have plans, please fix it. 
       
     
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
     Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
     
       Same comment above. If you want the package on EPEL5, we need to fix this. 
     
     
  Looking forward to hearing back from you to continue the review process. 
  
  Thank you for your time. 
  
 Best Regards, 
mmello

Comment 16 Marcus Moeller 2012-04-25 15:35:17 UTC
http://www.marcusmoeller.ch/share/build/pam_script/1.1.5-2/pam_script-1.1.5-2.fc17.src.rpm
http://www.marcusmoeller.ch/share/build/pam_script/1.1.5-2/pam_script.spec

Upgraded packages, respecting /usr move. I am not planning to build for el5/6

Comment 17 Marcelo Moreira de Mello 2012-04-26 15:24:56 UTC
  Hello Marcus, 
  
    Thank you for submitting another version for review.
    
    The SPEC file looks almost good to me, but you need to fix the #comment line below: 
    
-------    
    47 %build
    48 # pam module has to be located in %{_lib}/security
    49 %configure --libdir=%{_libdir}/security
-------
    
    The macro present on line 48 (comment line) needs to be escaped to %%{_lib}/security so rpmlint doesn't complain.
    
    Make the slight change on the SPEC file and submit again to proceed the packing process.
    
    Thank you. 
    
 Best Regards, 
mmello

Comment 19 Marcelo Moreira de Mello 2012-05-14 17:17:14 UTC
  Hello Marcus, 

  It looks like you have not removed the unnecessary references to buildroot (Since you are not planning to build for el5/6)

Issues:
[!]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot is not
needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5

[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only
needed if supporting EPEL5

  Marcus, can you please remove the unnecessary references to BuildRoot.  That includes the "rm -rf %{buildroot}" in the %install section and the BuildRoot tag at the top. 

BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)

  Refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag to further explanation. 

  Looking forward to hearing back from you to proceed the package process. 

 Thank you. 

Best Regards,
mmello

Comment 21 Ralph Bean 2013-01-09 19:51:05 UTC
Just pointing out that pam_script once existed in Fedora:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/pam_script

The dead.package file, added by Bill Nottingham reads:

    This package was fully retired on 2011-07-12 - it hasn't been
    shipped in a long time (if ever). Cleaning up some database/SCM
    discrepancies.

Comment 22 Marcus Moeller 2013-01-10 07:30:25 UTC
@Ralph so what is your intend with this comment.

This package is on state 'Stalled Reviewer'.

Comment 23 Ralph Bean 2013-01-10 14:30:28 UTC
Hi Marcus.  Just trying to help get it kickstarted again.  I tried pinging Marcelo on freenode, but no response yet.

Comment 24 Marcus Moeller 2013-05-06 12:41:10 UTC
I am no longer interested in maintaining this package. Maybe someone else would like to continue packaging it.


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