Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: chntpw - Change passwords in Windows SAM files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=465372
Summary: Review Request: chntpw - Change passwords in Windows SAM files Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: konrad@tylerc.org QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SPECS/chntpw.spec SRPM URL: http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SRPMS/chntpw-0.99.6-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: This is a utility to (re)set the password of any user that has a valid (local) account on your Windows NT/2k/XP/Vista etc system. You do not need to know the old password to set a new one. It works offline, that is, you have to shutdown your computer and boot off a floppydisk or CD or another system. Will detect and offer to unlock locked or disabled out user accounts! There is also a registry editor and other registry utilities that works under linux/unix, and can be used for other things than password editing.
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=465372
Patrice Dumas pertusus@free.fr changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pertusus@free.fr
--- Comment #1 from Patrice Dumas pertusus@free.fr 2008-10-10 17:16:55 EDT --- I can't see why you don't use the initial Makefile. Something along
make CC="%__cc" CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" LIBS="-lcrpyto" chntpw cpnt reged
And use simple cp or install to install the resulting executables.
Using cmake while upstream doesn't seems too much to me.
openssl in requires is not useful, it is automatically found by rpm.
It is better to avoid using Fedora whenever possible, so please rename README.Fedora to something more neutral like README.Dist
cp should be cp -p to keep timestamp.
Also I suggest using %{_mandir}/man8/%{name}.8* to catch any kind of compression.
I am afraid that, if accepted, you'll need contact legal (through spot, he is the contact) because of the crypto and export stuff.
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=465372
--- Comment #2 from Conrad Meyer konrad@tylerc.org 2008-10-10 20:04:41 EDT ---
I can't see why you don't use the initial Makefile.
The initial Makefile seemed horribly broken enough to warrant replacement (-m32 among other things!). If it builds using correct Fedora flags with make like you suggest I don't see any problem using the original Makefile though.
openssl in requires is not useful, it is automatically found by rpm.
Ok.
It is better to avoid using Fedora whenever possible, so please rename README.Fedora to something more neutral like README.Dist cp should be cp -p to keep timestamp. Also I suggest using %{_mandir}/man8/%{name}.8* to catch any kind of compression.
Ok.
I am afraid that, if accepted, you'll need contact legal (through spot, he is the contact) because of the crypto and export stuff.
I'll contact him.
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=465372
--- Comment #3 from Conrad Meyer konrad@tylerc.org 2008-10-10 20:15:43 EDT --- New URLs: Spec: http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SPECS/chntpw.spec SRPM: http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SRPMS/chntpw-0.99.6-2.fc9.src.rpm
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=465372
Conrad Meyer konrad@tylerc.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |182235
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=465372
--- Comment #4 from Patrice Dumas pertusus@free.fr 2008-10-11 04:52:03 EDT --- The files cannot be found?
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=465372
--- Comment #5 from Conrad Meyer konrad@tylerc.org 2008-10-11 04:58:01 EDT --- Interesting. skvidal moved fedorapeople to a different machine earlier today, perhaps that had something to do with it. I'll try to upload them again.
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=465372
--- Comment #6 from Conrad Meyer konrad@tylerc.org 2008-10-11 05:00:33 EDT --- Try it again now.
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=465372
--- Comment #7 from Patrice Dumas pertusus@free.fr 2008-10-11 05:29:05 EDT --- I'd prefer if the chntpw-README.Fedora was also renamed. The main aim of not having 'Fedora' is to be reused, so it shouldn't be anywhere: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks
The -p for keeping timestamps is notfor newly created executables, since their timestamp is the one of the build anyway, but for the files that may have their timestamps kept, here the man page and README file.
Just a suggestion, staticaly compiled executable should be kept, they don't do harm (and could even be used in-source), even though they are not of use in fedora.
I also suggest a comment in the spec file telling where the version comes from since the source archive has another version string.
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=465372
--- Comment #8 from Conrad Meyer konrad@tylerc.org 2008-10-11 05:39:25 EDT --- New URLs: Spec: http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SPECS/chntpw.spec SRPM: http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SRPMS/chntpw-0.99.6-3.fc9.src.rpm
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=465372
--- Comment #9 from Patrice Dumas pertusus@free.fr 2008-10-11 06:12:37 EDT --- rpmlint says:
chntpw.i386: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/chntpw-0.99.6/WinReg.txt
I think that this should be fixed.
Otherwise everything seems ok.
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=465372
--- Comment #10 from Conrad Meyer konrad@tylerc.org 2008-10-12 00:47:12 EDT --- New URLs: Spec: http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SPECS/chntpw.spec SRPM: http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SRPMS/chntpw-0.99.6-4.fc9.src.rpm
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=465372
Patrice Dumas pertusus@free.fr changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |pertusus@free.fr Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #11 from Patrice Dumas pertusus@free.fr 2008-10-12 05:32:51 EDT --- * rpmlint is silent * follow guidelines * free software, license included * match upstream: 09addfe7ae469677da39ed66d83858d3 chntpw-source-080526.zip * %files section right
Just one suggestion, I think it is better to use sed for the end of line, and to keep timestamp, like:
sed -e 's/\r$//' WinReg.txt > WinReg.txt.eol touch -c -r WinReg.txt WinReg.txt.eol mv WinReg.txt.eol WinReg.txt
This is only asuggestion, so
APPROVED
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=465372
Conrad Meyer konrad@tylerc.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #12 from Conrad Meyer konrad@tylerc.org 2008-10-12 05:49:04 EDT --- Your suggestions are greatly appreciated. Thanks much for the review!
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: chntpw Short Description: Change passwords in Windows SAM files Owners: konradm Branches: F-9 F-10 InitialCC:
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=465372
Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--- Comment #13 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2008-10-12 21:53:11 EDT --- cvs done.
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=465372
Conrad Meyer konrad@tylerc.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE
--- Comment #14 from Conrad Meyer konrad@tylerc.org 2008-10-13 01:09:24 EDT --- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=876482 <-- In rawhide.
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=465372
Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rjones@redhat.com
--- Comment #15 from Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com 2009-06-09 05:23:45 EDT --- Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: chntpw New Branches: EL-5 Owners: rjones
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=465372
Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?
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=465372
--- Comment #16 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2009-06-10 00:58:26 EDT --- Does Conrad want to maintain this in EPEL? or doesn't care?
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=465372
--- Comment #17 from Conrad Meyer konrad@tylerc.org 2009-06-10 03:34:53 EDT --- I have no interest in EPEL; Richard is totally free to take it.
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=465372
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--- Comment #18 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2009-06-10 16:52:58 EDT --- CVS done.
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=465372
--- Comment #19 from Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com 2009-06-10 17:03:17 EDT --- Thanks Jason.
Conrad - if you do need access to the EL-5 branch then just make the acl change request through pkgdb and I'll approve it straight away.
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=465372
--- Comment #20 from Conrad Meyer konrad@tylerc.org 2009-06-10 17:06:37 EDT --- Sure -- thanks.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org