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: ettercap - Network traffic sniffer/analyser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231746 ------- Additional Comments From wolfy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-03-14 11:11 EST ------- I've just built the package in mock and run the output via rpmlint. I will not post now a full review, because there are some changes to be done. 1. Please settle with either %{rpmbuildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. 2. zlib-devel is a duplicate BR, openssl-devel already pulls it 3. desktop-file-utils is a needed BR in order to install the .desktop file The explicit provides you have included are not needed. rpm will figure out itself. And as far as I see from rpm -q --provides / rpm -q --requires, it looks like a versioned require on ettercap-common is needed. rpmlint gives a warning on the symlinks created in -common: [wolfy@wolfy64 result]$ rpmlint ettercap-common-0.7.3-5.fc7.x86_64.rpm W: ettercap-common dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/ettercap-text ./ettercap W: ettercap-common dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/ettercap-curses ./ettercap I have attached a revised version of ettercap-spec, please take a look at it. Using it, the two main binary packages will give: [wolfy@wolfy64 result]$ rpm -qp --provides ettercap-0.7.3-5.fc7.x86_64.rpm ettercap = 0.7.3-5.fc7 [wolfy@wolfy64 result]$ rpm -qp --provides ettercap-gtk-0.7.3-5.fc7.x86_64.rpm ettercap ettercap-gtk = 0.7.3-5.fc7 I am almost sure that the unversioned provides in ettercap-gtk should be modified to ettercap-name-version -- 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