[Bug 195764] Review Request: tcpick
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tcpick https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=195764 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Version|devel |rawhide -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195764] Review Request: tcpick
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tcpick https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195764 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 07:48 EST --- Okay these two minor matters have been applied... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195764] Review Request: tcpick
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tcpick https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195764 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 10:32 EST --- Excellent, package APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195764] Review Request: tcpick
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tcpick https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195764 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 19:14 EST --- 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. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195764] Review Request: tcpick
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tcpick https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195764 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-19 16:14 EST --- Fedora packaging guidelines suggest against using %makeinstall unless absolutely necessary. Using 'make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install' is preferred (and as far as I can see, works just fine for this package). I'll do some more formal review tonight... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195764] Review Request: tcpick
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tcpick https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195764 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-19 16:19 EST --- You're right of course, but it works for about 2 years now, but I also could use 4 install lines for the four files instead of moving the files after the '%makeinstall' or 'make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install' when this makes you happy... ;-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195764] Review Request: tcpick
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: tcpick
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195764
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-19 23:12 EST ---
Just parroting from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines 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.x86_64.rpm
tcpick = 0.2.1-8.fc6
=
libpcap.so.0.9.4()(64bit)
* 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 %
makeinstall.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195764] Review Request: tcpick
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tcpick https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195764 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-18 09:42 EST --- Applied, thanks for pointing me to this example. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195764] Review Request: tcpick
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tcpick https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195764 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED], ||[EMAIL PROTECTED] BugsThisDependsOn||193189 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-17 20:46 EST --- 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 rpm.pbone.net 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) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195764] Review Request: tcpick
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tcpick https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195764 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-17 20:52 EST --- libpcap-devel is currently only in Rawhide (and yes it's fixed in Core CVS): core/development/i386/os/Fedora/RPMS/libpcap-devel-0.9.4-7.i386.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195764] Review Request: tcpick
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tcpick https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195764 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-17 20:58 EST --- 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... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195764] Review Request: tcpick
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tcpick https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195764 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-17 22:48 EST --- 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 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
