[Bug 1382875] Review Request: psad - Port Scan Attack Detector (psad) watches for suspect traffic

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382875



--- Comment #10 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to Jens Lody from comment #3)
> - Permissions on files are set properly.
>   Note: See rpmlint output
>   See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions
> 
> The cause for the 0700 file-permissions should be documented in spec-file.

Fixed.

[...]
> =========================================================================
> 
> [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
>      Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
>      found: "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "BSD (3
>      clause)", "Unknown or generated". 63 files have unknown license.
>      Detailed output of licensecheck in
>      /home/jens/reviews/rawhide/1382875-psad/licensecheck.txt
> 
> Not sure about the two strl*.c files with BSD3 license, but I guess they
> should be mentioned in license-tag

GPLv2+ and BSD is effectively GPLv2+, as mentioned in comment #5.

> 
> =========================================================================
> 
> [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
>      Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /etc/logrotate.d(samba-
>      common, logrotate, ppp, sssd-common)
> 
> Is "%dir /etc/logrotate.d" really needed ?

Yes. See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#The_directory_is_owned_by_a_package_which_is_not_required_for_your_package_to_function

> =========================================================================
> 
> [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
>      justified.
> A comment is missing in spec/and patch-file.

Fixed.

> =========================================================================
> 
> [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
>      architectures.
> Not tested/testable.

Actually this is testable using koji.

> psad.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/psad/LICENSE
> psad-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> /usr/src/debug/psad-2.4.3/psad.h
> psad-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> /usr/src/debug/psad-2.4.3/psad_funcs.c
> psad-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> /usr/src/debug/psad-2.4.3/kmsgsd.c
> 
> Upstream should be informed, the source/header-files can be patched, but
> there is no need to.
> The LICENSE-file should not be changed.

I'll inform upstream.

Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/psad/psad.spec
SRPM URL:
https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/psad/psad-2.4.3-2.fc24.src.rpm

* Sun Oct 09 2016 Dominik Mierzejewski <rpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 2.4.3-2
- fix SELinux policy temporarily (#1040425)
- document patch purpose and file/dir permissions

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




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