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

Bug 195764

Summary: Review Request: tcpick
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Robert Scheck <redhat-bugzilla>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Jarod Wilson <jarod>
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: hdegoede, jmp
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2006-06-20 23:14:29 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Bug Depends On: 193189    
Bug Blocks: 163779    

Description Robert Scheck 2006-06-17 14:54:29 UTC
Spec URL:
Description: tcpick is a textmode sniffer that can track tcp streams and saves
the data captured in files or displays them in the terminal. Useful for picking
files in a passive way.

It can store all connections in different files, or it can display all the 
stream on the terminal. It is useful to keep track of what users of a network 
are doing, and is usable with textmode tools like grep, sed and awk. It can 
handle eth and ppp interfaces.

Comment 1 jmp 2006-06-18 00:46:44 UTC
rpmbuild -v -ba tcpick.spec (on FC4)
error: Failed build dependencies:
        libpcap-devel is needed by tcpick-0.2.1-8.i386

found libpcap-devel-0.9.3-2.i686.rpm on which trigger
a huge chain of dependency, obviously this is not the way to go.

Where can I find libpcap-devel within extra devel tree?
(Bug 193189 say "fixed in CVS")

Comment 2 Robert Scheck 2006-06-18 00:52:40 UTC
libpcap-devel is currently only in Rawhide (and yes it's fixed in Core CVS):

Comment 3 Robert Scheck 2006-06-18 00:58:18 UTC
An alternative would be just to require /usr/include/pcap.h which is independent 
of the libpcap-devel split in Rawhide - but I see, what the problem is...

Comment 4 Dennis Gilmore 2006-06-18 02:48:19 UTC
versions of FC prior to developmnet/FC6  you have to BuildRequires: libpcap  
beacuse in all versions prior.  the libpcap package had the development files 
included.  to see a sample  of how to handle  this look at the snort spec file 

Comment 5 Robert Scheck 2006-06-18 13:42:57 UTC
Applied, thanks for pointing me to this example.

Comment 6 Jarod Wilson 2006-06-19 20:14:56 UTC
Fedora packaging guidelines suggest against using %makeinstall unless absolutely
necessary. Using 'make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install' is preferred (and as far
as I can see, works just fine for this package). I'll do some more formal review

Comment 7 Robert Scheck 2006-06-19 20:19:02 UTC
You're right of course, but it works for about 2 years now, but I also could
use 4 install lines for the four files instead of moving the files after the
'%makeinstall' or 'make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install' when this makes you 
happy... ;-)

Comment 8 Jarod Wilson 2006-06-20 03:12:35 UTC
Just parroting from on the %makeinstall bit. :)

Also, how about using '%configure --bindir=%{_sbindir}' instead of using an extra line to move the file? 
Not a requirement, but results in at least one less line in the spec.

Now for the rest of the review:

* package meets naming and packaging guidelines -- okay
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently -- okay
* dist tag is present -- okay
* build root is correct -- okay
      %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* license field matches the actual license -- GPL, okay
* license is open source-compatible and license text included in package -- okay
* source files match upstream -- okay
      bb94f2f9ea81aeb645619fbe9b3b9a29  tcpick-0.2.1.tar.gz
* latest version is being packaged -- 0.2.1, okay
* BuildRequires are proper -- okay
* package builds in mock -- okay (fedora development x86_64)
* rpmlint is silent -- okay
* final provides and requires are sane -- okay
    tcpick = 0.2.1-8.fc6

* no shared libraries are present -- okay
* package is not relocatable -- okay
* owns the directories it creates -- okay
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't -- okay
* no duplicates in %files -- okay
* file permissions are appropriate -- okay
* %clean is present -- okay
* %check is present and all tests pass -- n/a
        (include the summary from the test suite, if any)
* no scriptlets present -- okay
* code, not content -- okay
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary -- okay
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package -- okay
* no headers -- okay
* no pkgconfig files -- okay
* no libtool .la droppings -- okay
* not a GUI app -- okay
* not a web app -- okay

Only thing I see that needs to be altered to comply with the packaging guidelines is the use of %

Comment 9 Robert Scheck 2006-06-20 11:48:08 UTC
Okay these two minor matters have been applied...

Comment 10 Jarod Wilson 2006-06-20 14:32:35 UTC
Excellent, package APPROVED.

Comment 11 Robert Scheck 2006-06-20 23:14:29 UTC
11312 (tcpick): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded.
11313 (tcpick): Build on target fedora-5-extras succeeded.
11314 (tcpick): Build on target fedora-4-extras succeeded.