[Bug 589075] Review Request: dpkt - Packet creation / parsing library

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589075

manuel wolfshant <wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
          QAContact|extras-qa at fedoraproject.org |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+

--- Comment #4 from manuel wolfshant <wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro> 2010-07-19 17:28:25 EDT ---
Package Review
==============

Key:
 - = N/A
 x = Check
 ! = Problem
 ? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
 [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
 [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
 [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
     Tested on: EL6/x86_64
 [x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM:
dpkt.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://dpkt.googlecode.com/ IncompleteRead(0
bytes read)
dpkt.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://dpkt.googlecode.com/files/dpkt-1.7.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
binary RPM:
dpkt.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://dpkt.googlecode.com/ IncompleteRead(0
bytes read)
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
=>All warnings are false alerts, spectool downloads the tar.gz just fine
 [x] Package is not relocatable.
 [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     License type:BSD
 [x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
 [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
 [x] Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
     SHA1SUM of source file: df19d6eb9fb296cc6835c081a490eec4787ac824 
dpkt-1.7.tar.gz
 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
 [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [-] The spec file handles locales properly.
 [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
 [x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
 [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
 [x] Permissions on files are set properly.
 [x] Package consistently uses macros.
 [x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
 [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
 [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
 [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
 [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
 [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
 [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
 [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 [x] Final provides and requires are sane.

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
 [x] Latest version is packaged.
 [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
 [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
 [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
     Tested on: EL6/x86_64
 [?] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
     Tested on:
 [x] Package functions as described.
 [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
 [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
 [-] File based requires are sane.
 [-] %check is present and the test passes.
=== OPTIONAL ITEMS ===
 [x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
 [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).

=== Issues ===
1. Only the ping.py example worked for me.
[wolfy at wolfy tmp]$ sudo python /usr/share/doc/dpkt-1.7/examples/dnsping.py
router
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/share/doc/dpkt-1.7/examples/dnsping.py", line 51, in <module>
    DNSPing().main()
  File "/usr/share/doc/dpkt-1.7/examples/dnsping.py", line 11, in __init__
    default=socket.gethostname().split('.', 1)[1],
IndexError: list index out of range

[wolfy at wolfy tmp]$ sudo /usr/share/doc/dpkt-1.7/examples/dhcprequest.py
sudo: /usr/share/doc/dpkt-1.7/examples/dhcprequest.py: command not found
[wolfy at wolfy tmp]$ sudo python /usr/share/doc/dpkt-1.7/examples/dhcprequest.py
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/share/doc/dpkt-1.7/examples/dhcprequest.py", line 3, in <module>
    import dnet
ImportError: No module named dnet

[wolfy at wolfy tmp]$ sudo python /usr/share/doc/dpkt-1.7/examples/nbtping.py
winbox
NBTPING 192.168.50.36:
^C
--- 192.168.50.36 ping statistics ---

However those files are just examples, meant so far to replace the docs.
To be honest so far I fail to see the usefulness of those modules, given that
hping3 is way more powerful, but any project must start from somewhere.

================
*** APPROVED ***
================

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.