Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pam_usb - Hardware authentication using ordinary USB Flash Drives https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431320 ------- Additional Comments From guidolinfrancesco(a)email.it 2008-02-02 14:55 EST ------- This is my first package, and I am seeking a sponsor. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pam_usb - Hardware authentication using ordinary USB Flash Drives https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431320 guidolinfrancesco(a)email.it changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |177841 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pam_usb - Hardware authentication using ordinary USB Flash Drives https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431320 ------- Additional Comments From guidolinfrancesco(a)email.it 2008-02-03 07:03 EST ------- Spec URL: http://web.tiscali.it/guidonet/pam_usb/pam_usb.spec SRPM URL: http://web.tiscali.it/guidonet/pam_usb/pam_usb-0.4.2-1.fc8.src.rpm I didn't know that it was already in the repository. Basically there's no big differences between the old pam_usb-0.4.0-1.fc7.src.rpm and my package, however now I merged my changes into the old package in the repository and I updated it. The binaries and the libraries are replaced, and the configuration file /etc/pamusb.conf is backward compatible with pam_usb-0.4.0, so there shouldn't be problem during the upgrade. In any case I'll make some tests with Fedora7 in the next few day, then I'll let you know if the upgrade works fine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pam_usb - Hardware authentication using ordinary USB Flash Drives https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431320 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs(a)math.uh.edu 2008-02-03 19:00 EST ------- Please do not do that. You can introduce such incompatibilities in a major Fedora release, but it is not at all proper to just break the system of someone who does the prudent thing and lets their system update automatically. This goes doubly for a system that they might need to use to actually log into the system. Honestly I wouldn't even try to introduce this package into Fedora 8, because a user who hasd pam_usb installed and upgraded from F7 to F8 still has 0.3.3 installed. I would put the new package into rawhide and make sure that the release notes indicate the procedure which pam_usb users will need to go through to update things properly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pam_usb - Hardware authentication using ordinary USB Flash Drives https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431320 lkundrak(a)v3.sk changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |lkundrak(a)v3.sk Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pam_usb - Hardware authentication using ordinary USB Flash Drives https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431320 lkundrak(a)v3.sk changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(lkundrak(a)v3.sk) | ------- Additional Comments From lkundrak(a)v3.sk 2008-06-28 14:53 EST ------- The spec file is very nicely written and legible. Builds in mock (tried in el5), uses compiler flags correctly. Just a few things, probably only 1.) being a blocker, consider the other ones just advices: 1.) RPMlint. Please correct these: pam_usb.i386: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/share/doc/pam_usb-0.4.2/pam.d-examples 0644 A standard directory should have permission set to 0755. If you get this message, it means that you have wrong directory permissions in some dirs included in your package. pam_usb.i386: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/share/doc/pam_usb-0.4.2 0644 A standard directory should have permission set to 0755. If you get this message, it means that you have wrong directory permissions in some dirs included in your package. pam_usb.i386: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/pamusb-conf 0754 A standard executable should have permission set to 0755. If you get this message, it means that you have a wrong executable permissions in some files included in your package. 2.) Use of pmount The tool uses non-standard mechanism to escalate privileges. If the dependence of it can not be dropped, please document the fact that this package depends on it in %description. 3.) sed -i -e 's|/lib/security|/%{_lib}/security|' Makefile You already patch Makefile. I suggest you move this to the patch. Additionally, please consider renaming the patch to <name>-<version>-<intended_use>.patch 4.) %description is too long and contains non-portable formatting Please take into consideration, how would the description look in a gui tool, such as pup or packagekit gui. I suggest you leave only the first paragraph sans the last sentence of it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431320 --- Comment #10 from Guidolin Francesco <guidolinfrancesco(a)email.it&gt; 2008-08-22 15:09:17 EDT --- Now I don't use Linux anymore so I'm not interested on this RPM. If you want you can close this request. Bye. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.