Note: This is a beta release of Red Hat Bugzilla 5.0. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Also email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback here.
Bug 516464 - Review Request: adtool - Active Directory administration utility for Unix
Summary: Review Request: adtool - Active Directory administration utility for Unix
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Susi Lehtola
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2009-08-09 23:10 UTC by Ashay Humane
Modified: 2010-01-21 05:15 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2010-01-21 05:15:11 UTC

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Ashay Humane 2009-08-09 23:10:51 UTC
Spec URL:

Description: adtool is a unix command line utility for Active Directory
administration. Features include user and group creation, deletion, modification, password setting and directory query and search capabilities.

This is my second package, first one is yet to be sponsored. First one:

Comment 1 Susi Lehtola 2009-08-10 06:52:19 UTC
Taking over review.

Comment 2 Susi Lehtola 2009-08-10 06:52:40 UTC
Ashay: please fill in your full name in bugzilla.

Comment 3 Susi Lehtola 2009-08-10 16:25:08 UTC
rpmlint output is clean.

MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a duplicate. OK

MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. NEEDSWORK
- Use one of the time stamp keeping versions at
to convert the encoding.
- You shouldn't need to run
 chmod 0644 tests/
shipping executable files in %doc is OK.

MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the  Licensing Guidelines. OK

MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. NEEDSWORK
- No license is mentioned anywhere in the source code or documents.
- GPLv2 license is attached, so the package is assumed to be under the GPL.
=> License tag must be GPL+.
* You should contact upstream and ask them to add license headers to the source code.

MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A
MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK
MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. OK
MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK
MUST: Clean section exists. OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A
MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. OK
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A
MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A
MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A
MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK
MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK
SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK
SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK
SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK

Comment 4 Ashay Humane 2009-08-11 16:34:14 UTC
I've fixed the iconv timestamp issue.

I'm now keeping the exe script in doc. That gives a rpmlint warning. If that's Ok, then great...

The license is GPLv2 in the "COPYING" file provided by upstream.


Comment 5 Susi Lehtola 2009-08-11 16:53:38 UTC
(In reply to comment #4)
> The license is GPLv2 in the "COPYING" file provided by upstream.

No, "COPYING" contains the GPLv2 license, but there isn't a mention anywhere that specifies the license of adtool. See comment #3.

Comment 6 Ashay Humane 2009-08-21 22:04:06 UTC
The upstream author was kind enough to change the License in the source files as  I requested.

Thank you

Comment 7 Susi Lehtola 2009-08-24 12:56:47 UTC
The license tag is still incorrect, instead of GPLv2 it should be GPLv2+ as the license statement is

 * This file may be used subject to the terms and conditions of the
 * GNU Library General Public License Version 2, or any later version
 * at your option, as published by the Free Software Foundation.


Restore the 
  chmod 0644 tests/
in %prep, it is needed after all.

Comment 8 Susi Lehtola 2009-08-24 13:09:08 UTC
Oh, and change the description to

adtool is a unix command line utility for Active Directory administration.
Features include user and group creation, deletion, modification, password
setting and directory query and search capabilities.

(you can use longer lines without getting any warnings)

Comment 9 Ashay Humane 2009-08-25 15:01:53 UTC
Alright... made License and chmod changes:


Comment 10 Susi Lehtola 2009-08-25 15:06:07 UTC
The package has been


! I could not test the operation as I don't have access to an AD server.

Comment 11 Bruno Wolff III 2009-09-23 22:32:53 UTC
I tested it against an AD server and was able to modify group membership and get lists of users. So it seems to really work. I haven't been able to figure out how to do some stuff, but I have just started playing with it.

Comment 12 Rahul Sundaram 2009-09-24 09:41:16 UTC
Akshay, you need to apply for cvs next

Comment 13 Susi Lehtola 2010-01-01 22:59:27 UTC
ping ashay

Comment 14 Jason Tibbitts 2010-01-21 05:15:11 UTC
It's been months with no response, and the submitter dropped another review, so I'm going to go ahead and close this.

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