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 197048
| Summary: | Review Request: pam_script | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Michael J Knox <michael> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Jason Tibbitts <j> |
| Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | ||
| 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: | 2006-06-28 22:07:17 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
Michael J Knox
2006-06-28 09:46:30 UTC
This fails to build in mock:
+ make
gcc -Wall -pedantic -fPIC -shared -o pam_script.so pam_script.c
pam_script.c:23:34: error: security/_pam_macros.h: No such file or directory
pam_script.c:24:34: error: security/pam_modules.h: No such file or directory
pam_script.c:48: error: expected ')' before '*' token
pam_script.c:83: error: expected ')' before '*' token
pam_script.c:240: error: expected '=', ',', ';', 'asm' or '__attribute__' before
'int'
pam_script.c:249: error: expected '=', ',', ';', 'asm' or '__attribute__' before
'int'
pam_script.c:259: error: expected '=', ',', ';', 'asm' or '__attribute__' before
'int'
pam_script.c:296: error: expected '=', ',', ';', 'asm' or '__attribute__' before
'int'
make: *** [pam_script.so] Errror 1
Adding BuildRequires: pam-devel fixes this up; rpmlint is happy with the
resulting package. I'll assume the BR: is there for the purposes of this review.
The compiler isn't called with the appropriate flags. You need to pass in
${optflags} somehow. This also causes the -debuginfo package to be broken.
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines (pam modules use an underscore).
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream.
* source files match upstream:
9f1031154718b79d6ee79c9c5231b1d4 pam-script-0.1.7.tar.gz
* latest version is being packaged.
X BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64) (after adding BR: pam-devel)
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
pam_script.so()(64bit)
pam_script = 0.1.7-1.fc6
=
(empty)
* shared libraries are present, internal to pam.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates (doesn't own /lib/security, but I think pam is
a requirement for any running system)
* 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.
thanks for the review.. updated package ans spec Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~michael/pam_script.spec SRPM URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~michael/pam_script-0.1.7-1.src.rpm Sorry.. incorrect URLs, trying again. Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~michael/pam_script.spec SRPM URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~michael/pam_script-0.1.7-2.src.rpm Looks good; the package builds fine, the compiler is called with the proper flags and the debuginfo package includes the files it's supposed to. APPROVED Cheers for the review, imported into CVS and building on devel. |