[Bug 581161] Review Request: cowpatty - Audit WPA pre-shared keys

[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=581161

Dominic Hopf <dmaphy at fedoraproject.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #12 from Dominic Hopf <dmaphy at fedoraproject.org> 2010-05-13 19:38:07 EDT ---
$ rpmlint cowpatty.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint cowpatty-4.6-2.fc12.src.rpm
cowpatty.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

This spelling-error can be ignored. "pre-shared key" is a correct and common
term.

$ rpmlint cowpatty-4.6-2.fc12.x86_64.rpm
cowpatty-debuginfo-4.6-2.fc12.x86_64.rpm
cowpatty.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

The spelling-error is okay, see above.


Package Review
==============

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

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
 [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
 [x] Specfile name matches %{name}.spec
 [x] Package seems to meet Packaging Guidelines
 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary RPMs on at least one
     supported architecture.
     Tested on: Fedora 12/x86_64
 [x] Rpmlint output:
     source RPM: see above
     binary RPM: see above
 [x] Package is not relocatable.
 [x] License in specfile matches actual License and meets Licensing Guidelines
     License: GPLv2
 [x] License file is included in %doc.
 [x] Specfile is legible and written in AE
 [x] Sourcefile in the Package is the same as provided in the mentioned Source
     SHA1SUM of Source: 2dc09d725e4131a68a33c8717d3a7317e5616df2
 [x] Package compiles successfully
 [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires
 [-] Specfile handles locales properly
 [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required
 [x] Package owns directorys it creates
 [-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 [x] Package does not list a file more than once in the %files listing
 [x] %files section includes %defattr and permissions are set properly
 [x] %clean section is there and contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
 [x] Macros are consistently used
 [x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
 [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage
 [x] Program runs properly without files listed in %doc
 [-] Header files are in a -devel package
 [-] Static libraries are in a -static package
 [-] Package requires pkgconfig if .pc files are present
 [-] .so-files are put into a -devel subpackage
 [-] Subpackages include fully versioned dependency for the base package
 [-] Any libtool archives (*.la) are removed
 [-] contains desktop file (%{name}.desktop) if it is a GUI application
 [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 [x] %{buildroot} is removed at beginning of %install
 [-] Filenames are encoded in UTF-8

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
 [x] Package contains latest upstream version
 [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
 [-] non-English translations for description and summary
 [x] Package builds in mock
     Tested on: F12/x86_64
 [!] Package should compile and build into binary RPMs on all supported
architectures.
     tested build with koji, does not work, see below
 [x] Program runs
 [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
 [-] pkgconfig (*.pc) files are placed in a -devel package
 [-] require package providing a file instead of the file itself
     no files outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin are required

===Issues to be fixed===
 * There is a file radiotap.h which license is not GPLv2. According to the
   Packaging Guidelines [1] you will have to handle that in the License: tag
   field and add a comment above:

   # The entire source code is GPLv2+ except radiotap.h which is BSD
   License: GPLv2 and BSD

 * The package does not build with koji. There are some issues with the
   Makefile which prevent the build from working properly with the smp flags.
   I suggest to remove the smp flags temporarily to work around the issue:

   make CFLAGS="%{optflags} -DOPENSSL"

   Ideally this should be fixed by upstream. I will have another look on
   this issue these days. Until it is finally resolved the above mentioned
   workaround is appropriate I think.

Anything else looks good so far, so the package is APPROVED. Remember to fix
the mentioned issues first before checking in the specfile into CVS.

[1]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios

-- 
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.