[Bug 461385] Review Request: hydra - A very fast network logon cracker

[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=461385


Andreas Thienemann <andreas at bawue.net> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Blocks|                            |182235
               Flag|                            |needinfo?(konrad at tylerc.org
                   |                            |)




--- Comment #1 from Andreas Thienemann <andreas at bawue.net>  2008-10-20 14:14:06 EDT ---
That one was a pretty quick review as it didn't compile in mock. Please check

OK - source files match upstream:
 cd2e7e5ea479d50982b08334b1f4477a6620e6b45bc79ab55ddd07b128c64611 
hydra-5.4-src.tar.gz
OK - package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
??? - specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros
consistently.
 Shouldn't the sed cack for the Makefile go into the prep phase?
OK - dist tag is present.
OK - build root is correct.
NOK - license field matches the actual license.
NOK - license is open source-compatible.
 While the code is GPLv2, there's a LICENCE.HYDRA file adding additional 
 stipulations. Please check this, blocking FE-LEGAL until cleared up.
OK - license text included in package.
OK - latest version is being packaged.
NOK - BuildRequires are proper.
 Missing buildrequires.
OK - compiler flags are appropriate.
OK - %clean is present.
NOK - package builds in mock.
 At least one missing dependency on openssl-devel, possibly other. Please
check.

NOTCHECKED:
package installs properly.
debuginfo package looks complete.
rpmlint is silent.
final provides and requires are sane:
  (paste in the rpm -qp --provides and --requires output)
%check is present and all tests pass:
  (if possible, include some info indicating a successful test suite)
  (it's OK if there's no test suite, but if one is there it should be run if
possible)
no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
  (or, if shared libraries are present, make sure ldconfig is run)
owns the directories it creates.
doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
no duplicates in %files.
file permissions are appropriate.
no scriptlets present.
  (or, if scriptlets are present, compare them against the ScriptletSnippets
page)
code, not content.
documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
%docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
no headers.
no pkgconfig files.
no libtool .la droppings.
desktop files valid and installed properly.

-- 
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.