Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 176943
Summary: | Review Request: rootsh : Shell wrapper for auditing | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Jef Spaleta <jspaleta> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | David Lawrence <dkl> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-extras-list |
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: | 2006-01-08 17:57:48 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: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 163779 |
Description
Tom "spot" Callaway
2006-01-04 16:30:17 UTC
Okay builds in mock against development. I'll see if I can get to the formal review tonite after battlestar. Formal review Summary: 1 blocker - BAD: Forgot to include the COPYING file in the %docs section Get that fixed and you have approval. - GOOD: rpmlint on mock built binary returns clean. - GOOD: package named according to the PackageNamingGuidelines. - GOOD: The spec file name matches %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec - GOOD: The package meets the PackagingGuidelines. - GOOD: The package is licensed GPL - GOOD: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. - GOOD: The spec written in American English. - GOOD: The spec file is legible. - GOOD: The sources used to build matches the upstream source md5sum 39e3a876b991fe235af3150335d1a0f8 - GOOD: The package successfully compile and build into binary rpms on atleast x86 - GOOD: No BuildRequires and it still builds in mock - GOOD: No locales - GOOD: No shared library files - GOOD: own all directories that it creates. uses /usr/bin/ and /usr/share/man/man1 which are explicitly listed in the FHS and owned by filesystem package - GOOD: no duplicates in %files listing. - GOOD: Permissions on files are set properly. - GOOD: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). - GOOD: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of PackagingGuidelines. - GOOD: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of PackagingGuidelines. - GOOD: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. COPYING added as %doc in -2: SRPM: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/rootsh-1.5.2-2.src.rpm SPEC: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/rootsh.spec rootsh-1.5.2-2.src.rpm APPROVED |