[Bug 691894] Review Request: pyrit - A GPGPU-driven WPA/WPA2-PSK key cracker
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Jun 8 21:01:40 UTC 2011
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
Garrett Holmstrom <gholms at fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |gholms at fedoraproject.org
Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #4 from Garrett Holmstrom <gholms at fedoraproject.org> 2011-06-08 17:01:35 EDT ---
Review of pyrit-0.4.0-1.fc15:
The dump files and dictionary in pyrit-0.4.0/test are considered content, but
the license under which they are distributable is unclear. I recommend asking
upstream for clarification. If the license is acceptable, is the content
itself considered acceptable for inclusion in a Fedora SRPM?
Packaging-wise, please fix the permissions and RPM Provides of _cpyrit_cpu.so.
AFAIK the build also needs to either honor Fedora's CFLAGS or justify its
failure to do so. Note that distutils respects the CFLAGS environment
variable. The remaining issues, specifically man pages and translations, are
optional. See below for a full review.
Mandatory review guidelines:
NO - rpmlint output
pyrit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee
pyrit.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://pyrit.googlecode.com/files/pyrit-0.4.0.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found
pyrit.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee
pyrit.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/cpyrit/_cpyrit_cpu.so
_cpyrit_cpu.so()(64bit)
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 and invalid-url complaints appear to be bogus.
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
ok - Consistent use of macros
NO - Sources contain only permissible code or content
test/*.gz has no associated content license.
-- - 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:
no - Query upstream about including license files
No license for test/*.gz
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
NO - %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise
Note that distutils respects the CFLAGS environment variable.
-- - 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 when 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
NO - Provides/Requires properly filtered
_cpyrit_cpu.so must be filtered from Provides.
-- - 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.
More information about the package-review
mailing list