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 557995
Summary: | Review Request: ssldump - An SSLv3/TLS network protocol analyzer | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Robert Scheck <redhat-bugzilla> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Christoph Wickert <cwickert> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | low | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | cwickert, fedora-package-review, jsimon, notting, tcallawa |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | cwickert:
fedora-review+
j: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | 0.9-0.1.b3.el4 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2010-01-28 21:09:40 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: |
Description
Robert Scheck
2010-01-23 00:30:09 UTC
OK - MUST: rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/ssldump-* 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. FIX - MUST: not named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK - MUST: spec file name matches the base package %{name} OK - MUST: package meets the Packaging Guidelines OK - MUST: Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines OK - MUST: License field in spec file matches the actual license OK - MUST: license file included in %doc OK - MUST: spec is in American English OK - MUST: spec is legible OK - MUST: sources match the upstream source by MD5 ac8c28fe87508d6bfb06344ec496b1dd OK - MUST: successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on x86_64 OK - MUST: No ExcludeArch OK - MUST: all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. N/A - MUST: handles locales properly with %find_lang N/A - MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. N/A - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review. OK - MUST: owns all directories that it creates OK - MUST: no duplicate files in the %files listing OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly, includes %defattr(...) OK - MUST: package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT OK - MUST: consistently uses macros OK - MUST: package contains code, or permissable content N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package N/A - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix, then library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A - MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. OK - MUST: package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK - MUST: at the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT OK - MUST: all filenames valid UTF-8 SHOULD Items: OK - SHOULD: Source package includes license text(s) as a separate file. N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. OK - SHOULD: builds in mock. OK - SHOULD: compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported architectures. OK - SHOULD: functions as described. N/A - SHOULD: Scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A - SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg OK - SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself: The package BuildRequires %{_includedir}/pcap.h, but this file is provided by different packages in different versions of Fedora/RHEL, so this is ok. Other items: OK - latest stable version ;) OK - SourceURL valid OK - Compiler flags ok OK - Debuginfo complete OK - Timestamps match upstream and are preserved when possible Issues: - The release tag is wrong: 0.1 indicated a pre-release package, but b3 is a post release. So is should be 1.b3%{?dist} - The license is BSD with advertising but ssldump links against OpenSSL. Not sure if this is allowed, blocking FE-Legal. - Build fails locally if there is more than one version of automake installed. I suggest to use the workaround I already proposed in bug 496492 comment 6. I wouldn't call this a blocker though, since the package builds fine in koji. @Spot: Please have a look at the licensing. There is no compatibility concern between the OpenSSL license and the BSD with advertising license (just a lot of advertising clauses (3) between the two). Lifting FE-Legal. Thanks Spot! Robert: The package version seems to be ok since b3 seems a beta3. The only remaining issue is the build failing locally with different versions of autotools installed. I still suggest to work around it, but I wouldn't call this a blocker since it builds fine in the buildsys. Therefor the package is APPROVED Christoph, thank you for the review. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: ssldump Short Description: An SSLv3/TLS network protocol analyzer Owners: robert Branches: EL-4 EL-5 F-11 F-12 InitialCC: CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py). ssldump-0.9-0.1.b3.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ssldump-0.9-0.1.b3.fc12 ssldump-0.9-0.1.b3.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ssldump-0.9-0.1.b3.fc11 ssldump-0.9-0.1.b3.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ssldump-0.9-0.1.b3.el5 ssldump-0.9-0.1.b3.el4 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 4. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ssldump-0.9-0.1.b3.el4 ssldump-0.9-0.1.b3.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. ssldump-0.9-0.1.b3.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. ssldump-0.9-0.1.b3.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. ssldump-0.9-0.1.b3.el4 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 4 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |