[Bug 317101] Review Request: rats - Rough Auditing Tool for Security

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Oct 8 13:31:40 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: rats - Rough Auditing Tool for Security


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=317101


lkundrak at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|163778                      |
              nThis|                            |
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |MODIFIED




------- Additional Comments From lkundrak at redhat.com  2007-10-08 09:31 EST -------
Scott: thanks for the package, it looks very well. Here are some random things
that would be nice to be looked at before this this gets approval:

 25 RATS is released under version 2 of the GNU Public License (GPL).

This is not necessary, License: tag is for this.

 30 ./configure  --prefix=/usr \
 31             --datadir=%{_datadir}/rats
 32 
 33 %build
 34 CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS"; export CFLAGS

Why not use the %configure macro? It would set the CFLAGS for you, and possibly
correct libdir on 64 bit architectures, etc.

 38 %install
 39 [ "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" != "/" ] && rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

Do not conditionally remove the build root. Just delete it, it is never root.

 45 # rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
 46 # mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr
 47 # make install prefix=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
 48 # mv bin share $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/

Why is this commented? Why do you install stuff by hand instead of make install?
It does not have to be wrong, just please always write comments in SPEC in case
you do something nonstandard.

 53 #make clean

Also, never make useless comments like this. Just remove it. Also applies to
what is below the %files section.

 77 * Wed Sep 26 2007 Scott Henson <shenson at redhat.com>
 78  - 2.1-1: Initial packaged version

The correct format of the changelog entry would be:

 77 * Wed Sep 26 2007 Scott Henson <shenson at redhat.com> - 2.1-1
 78 - Initial packaged version

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list