[Bug 226201] Merge Review: nmap

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: nmap


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226201


jima at beer.tclug.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|jima at beer.tclug.org         |harald at redhat.com
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review-




------- Additional Comments From jima at beer.tclug.org  2007-03-23 10:59 EST -------
(4.20-4.fc7 is in CVS, actually...)

1. Not fixed, but it's not (AFAIK) a blocker.

2. Fixed, thanks.  (It's a blocker now, too.)

3. Fixed (rpmlint on SRPM is now silent), thanks.

4. `make install`-y line looks better and appears to work fine.

5. nmap-4.20-nostrip.patch fixed.

A couple (minor) problems creeped in, however.

1. Versions in %changelog shouldn't have %{?dist} on the end; see the last point
in this section:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag#head-5fff04551074fb311a96352be7e7cc3006c90f25

Totally logical mistake, I fully admit. :-)

2. We now have an rpmlint warning on the binary package:

W: nmap incoherent-version-in-changelog 4.20-4 2:4.20-4.fc7

This is due to Karsten Hopp's changelog entry -- it should have contained the
Epoch used (as you and Florian have been doing).

In a totally random comment, in running `rpmdiff` on the RPMs produced by your
changes (against ones from before), it seems you may have fixed a bug that I
hadn't noticed.  It looks like before your 1.35 CVS change to nmap.spec, nmap
was using its own libpcap.  Your BR change from libpcap to libpcap-devel fixed
that, and added a dependency on libpcap.  This, in my opinion, is a very good
thing -- thanks.

Fix the new 1 and 2, and I think nmap's good to go.

-- 
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.