[Bug 469494] Review Request: xlcrack - Recover lost and forgotten passwords from XLS files

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469494


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2008-11-07 16:43:03 EDT ---
It doesn't get much simpler than this package.  Unfortunately, there's one
issue: the package doesn't compile with the proper set of compiler flags.
Adding
   sed -i -e 's/-g -Wall/%{optflags}/' Makefile
after the %setup call gets things building properly, but without a test
document I can't verify that it doesn't break anything.  (I guess

* source files match upstream:
   ad01be3262726d94774f519ffb920a925abe95c483d05105b596c372cc13dcf5  
   xlcrack-1.2.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
X compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   xlcrack = 1.2-1.fc10
   xlcrack(x86-64) = 1.2-1.fc10
  =
   libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libgsf-1.so.114()(64bit)
   libxml2.so.2()(64bit)

* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.  I don't have an old excel 
  around to create a document I could use to test this.
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.

-- 
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.