[Bug 191549] Review Request: hping3 - TCP/IP stack auditing and much more

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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: hping3 - TCP/IP stack auditing and much more


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191549


tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|163778                      |163779
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx  2006-06-07 14:48 EST -------
This failed to build on the development branch due to the split of libpcap-devel
from libpcap.  I modified the BuildRequires: to libpcap-devel and all is well. 
Unfortunately the current libpcap releases were not modified to provide
libpcap-devel so you will have to use different specfiles for devel and FC5.

* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* 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 included in package.
* source files match upstream:
   ca4ea4e34bcc2162aedf25df8b2d1747  hping3-20051105.tar.gz
   ca4ea4e34bcc2162aedf25df8b2d1747  hping3-20051105.tar.gz-srpm
* latest version is being packaged.
X BuildRequires are proper (libpcap-devel needed for FC6)
O package builds in mock (development, x86_64) (after fixing BR: libpcap-devel)
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   hping2
   hping3 = 0.0.20051105-2.fc6
  =
   libtcl8.4.so()(64bit)
* no shared libraries are present.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates.
* 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.

APPROVED; just be aware of the libpcap-devel issue.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

_______________________________________________
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]