[Bug 234812] Review Request: tcpreplay - Replay captured network traffic

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Apr 12 19:35:08 UTC 2007


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: tcpreplay -  Replay captured network traffic
Alias: tcpreplay

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234812





------- Additional Comments From bjohnson at symetrix.com  2007-04-12 15:34 EST -------
Package Review
==============

Key:
 - = N/A
 x = Check
 ! = Problem
 ? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
 [x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
 [x] Rpmlint output:
 [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
 [x] Spec file name must matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
 [x] Package meets the  Packaging Guidelines.
 [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meet other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     License type: BSD
 [x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
 [x] Spec file is written in American English.
 [x] Spec file for the package is legible.
 [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
     MD5SUM this package    : fff1c5a382bc869caabfb20f4b3b3dad
     MD5SUM upstream package: fff1c5a382bc869caabfb20f4b3b3dad
 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
     Tested on: FC6/i386
 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch, OR:
     Arches excluded:
     Why:
 [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are
listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [-] The spec file handles locales properly.
 [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
 [x] Package is not relocatable.
 [x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
 [-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
 [x] Permissions on files are set properly.
 [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
 [x] Package consistently uses macros.
 [x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
 [x] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
 [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
 [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
 [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
 [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
 [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
 [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
 [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
 [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
 [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
     Tested on: FC6/i386
 [-] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
     Tested on:
 [?] Package functions as described.
 [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
 [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
 [x] File based requires are sane.
 [-] Latest version is packaged.

=== Issues ===
1. Please consider to change the install lines in your patch to use install -p
to preserve timestamps.  Or you could 
2. Please change "%doc Docs" to "%doc Docs/*" so that there is not an extraneous
 single Docs directory in the %doc directory.
3. Not sure why you did a file base requires on /sbin/tcpdump rather than a
package name.
4. CFLAGS are not being used in the compile.  This is a blocker.
5. Do not include Docs/INSTALL, Docs/WARNINGS.  You might also consider only
including one format for the same information as far as Docs/*.

=== Final Notes ===
1.


-- 
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.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list