Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 182744
| Summary: | Review Request: libnasl - Nessus Attack Scripting Language | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Andreas Bierfert <andreas.bierfert> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | John Mahowald <jpmahowald> |
| Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | imlinux |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2006-03-18 10:25:50 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | 182743 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | 163779, 182941 | ||
|
Description
Andreas Bierfert
2006-02-24 13:53:46 UTC
Some tuneups (see #182743 for details) :) http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/libnasl-2.2.6-2.src.rpm http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/libnasl.spec A number of compile warnings due to integers and pointers. It'd be nice if upstream fixed them. Minor: * Duplicate BuildRequires: libpcap (by nessus-libraries-devel), tetex-dvips (by tetex-latex) Good: - rpmlint checks return: rpmlint of libnasl: W: libnasl non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pki/nessus/nessus_org.pem not really conf file, can ignore rpmlint of libnasl-devel: E: libnasl-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib symlink, can ignore - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (GPL) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86_64) - no missing BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file - devel package ok - no .la files - post/postun ldconfig ok - devel requires base package n-v-r APPROVED Fixed the BR. Imported and pushed :) Thanks for the review. |