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
Bug 165892 - Review Request: xsupplicant
Summary: Review Request: xsupplicant
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: José Matos
QA Contact: David Lawrence
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2005-08-13 17:45 UTC by Tom "spot" Callaway
Modified: 2007-11-30 22:11 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2006-08-29 09:01:21 UTC
Type: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Tom "spot" Callaway 2005-08-13 17:45:15 UTC
Spec Name or Url:
SRPM Name or Url:
This software allows a GNU/Linux or BSD workstation to authenticate with
a RADIUS server using 802.1x and various EAP protocols.  The intended
use is for computers with wireless LAN connections to complete a strong
authentication before joining the network.

Comment 1 José Matos 2005-08-19 15:59:25 UTC
I have followed the link to sourceforge and I only find the the 1.2 version. 
If you redo the package for 1.2 I will review the package. 
FWIW, the spec file looks perfect. :-) 

Comment 2 Tom "spot" Callaway 2005-08-19 16:16:15 UTC
Sneaky, sneaky. They haven't updated their website yet. :)



Comment 3 José Matos 2005-08-19 18:17:12 UTC
+ package builds in mock for x86_64  
+ rpmlint check  
  rpmlint xsupplicant-1.2-1.fc4.x86_64.rpm  
E: xsupplicant non-readable /etc/xsupplicant.conf 0600  
  (clearly here rpmlint is wrong, xsupplicant configuration should not be  
+ package follows name convention and the spec file is correctly named  
+ no locales, libraries, subpackages, pkgconfigs etc. to worry about  
+ not relocatable  
+ no directory ownership or permissions issues  
+ no duplicate files  
+ the license is correct (GPL) and it ships in the package  
+ the spec file is in English and it is readable  
+ the source file is the same as upstream (sha1sum agrees)  
+ build requires are correct (*)  
So the package is APPROVED.  
(*) Is the any special reason to require byacc and not bison? I am just  
curious. :-)  

Comment 4 Tom "spot" Callaway 2005-08-19 18:55:56 UTC
No reason. In fact, I'll change it to bison before I commit.

Comment 5 José Matos 2006-08-29 08:55:32 UTC
Reopening bug to fix assignee.

Comment 6 José Matos 2006-08-29 09:01:21 UTC
Assignee fixed, closing again.

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