[Bug 691894] Review Request: pyrit - A GPGPU-driven WPA/WPA2-PSK key cracker

[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=691894

--- Comment #7 from Garrett Holmstrom <gholms at fedoraproject.org> 2011-08-18 14:29:32 EDT ---
Most everything looks good.  Just fix the permissions on _cpyrit_cpu.so and
that should do it.

Review of pyrit-0.4.0-2.fc15:

Mandatory review guidelines:
NO - rpmlint output
     pyrit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee
     pyrit.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee
     pyrit.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/cpyrit/_cpyrit_cpu.so 0775L
     pyrit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pyrit
     --
     The spelling-error warnings are bogus.  Man pages are optional.
ok - Package meets naming guidelines
ok - Spec file name matches base package name
ok - License is acceptable (GPLv3+ with exceptions)
ok - License field in spec is correct
     The file "pyrit" has no license header; assuming GPLv3+
ok - License files included in package %docs or not included in upstream source
ok - License files installed when any subpackage combination is installed
ok - Spec written in American English
ok - Spec is legible
ok - Sources match upstream unless altered to fix permissibility issues
     Upstream MD5:  7258b6f3dacfb09736ddeed2a379df2d  pyrit-0.4.0.tar.gz
     Your MD5:      7258b6f3dacfb09736ddeed2a379df2d  pyrit-0.4.0.tar.gz
ok - Build succeeds on at least one supported platform
ok - Build succeeds on all supported platforms or has ExcludeArch + bugs filed
ok - BuildRequires correct
-- - Package handles locales with %find_lang
-- - %post, %postun call ldconfig if package contains shared .so files
ok - No bundled system libs
-- - Relocatability is justified
ok - Package owns all directories it creates
ok - Package requires other packages for directories it uses but does not own
ok - No duplicate files in %files unless necessary for license files
NO - File permissions are sane
     -rwxrwxr-x /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/cpyrit/_cpyrit_cpu.so
ok - Each %files section contains %defattr on EL4
ok - Consistent use of macros
ok - Sources contain only permissible code or content
-- - Large documentation files go in -doc package
ok - Missing %doc files do not affect runtime
-- - Headers go in -devel package
-- - Static libs go in -static package
-- - Unversioned .so files go in -devel package
-- - Devel packages require base with fully-versioned dependency
ok - Package contains no .la files
-- - GUI app installs .desktop file w/desktop-file-install or has justification
ok - Package's files and directories don't conflict with others' or justified
ok - File names are valid UTF-8

Optional review guidelines:
ok - Query upstream about including license files
no - Translations of description, Summary
ok - Builds in mock
ok - Builds on all supported platforms
ok - Functions as described
-- - Scriptlets are sane
-- - Non-devel subpackage Requires are sane
-- - .pc files go in -devel unless main package is a development tool
ok - No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin
no - Man pages included for all executables
ok - Package with test-suite executes it in %check section

Packaging guidelines:
ok - Has dist tag
ok - Useful without external bits
ok - Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir, /usr/target, /run
-- - Programs launched before FS mounting use /run instead of /var/run
-- - Binaries in /bin, /sbin do not depend on files in /usr
ok - Changelog in prescribed format
ok - Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags
no - Correct BuildRoot tag on < F10/EL6
     This prevents building for epel-5
no - Correct %clean section on < F13/EL6
     This prevents building for epel-5
ok - Requires correct, justified where necessary
ok - Summary, description do not use trademarks incorrectly
ok - All relevant documentation is packaged, tagged appropriately
ok - Documentation files do not have executable permissions
ok - %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise
-- - Package with .pc files Requires pkgconfig on < EL6
ok - Useful -debuginfo package or disabled and justified
ok - No static executables
ok - Rpath absent or only used for internal libs
-- - Config files marked with %config
-- - %config files marked noreplace or justified
-- - No %config files under /usr
-- - SysV-style init script
ok - Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded directory names where appropriate
ok - Spec uses macros for executables only when configurability is needed
-- - %makeinstall used only when ``make install DESTDIR=...'' doesn't work
ok - Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time
-- - Spec uses %{SOURCE#} instead of $RPM_SOURCE_DIR or %{sourcedir}
ok - %global instead of %define where appropriate
-- - Package containing translations BuildRequires gettext
-- - File timestamps preserved by file ops
-- - Parallel make
ok - Spec does not use Requires(pre,post) notation
-- - User, group creation handled correctly (See Packaging:UsersAndGroups)
-- - Web app files go in /usr/share/%{name}, not /var/www
-- - Conflicts are justified
ok - No external kernel modules
ok - No files in /srv
ok - One project per package
-- - Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified
-- - Packages needing dirs in /var/run or /var/lock use tmpfiles.d on >= F15

Python guidelines:
ok - Runtime Requires correct
ok - Python macros declared on < F13/EL6
ok - All .py files packaged with .pyc, .pyo counterparts
ok - Includes .egg-info files/directories when generated
ok - Provides/Requires properly filtered
-- - Code that invokes gtk.gdk.get_pixels_array() Requires numpy

-- 
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.