Bug 1051738

Summary: Review Request: mkbrutus - Password bruteforcer for MikroTik devices or boxes running RouterOS
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Tonet Jallo <tonet666p>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: rawhideCC: echevemaster, e, package-review
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-08-15 10:56:23 EDT Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Description Tonet Jallo 2014-01-11 01:10:53 EST
Spec URL: www.codigolinux.net/fedora/mkbrutus/3/mkbrutus.spec
SRPM URL: www.codigolinux.net/fedora/mkbrutus/3/MKBRUTUS-1.0.0-3.fc20.src.rpm
Description: 

Hi, it's the third version or mkbrutus package for fedora repo, mkbrutus is a Mikrotik API bruteforcer script.

Fedora Account System Username: Tonet666p
Comment 1 Christopher Meng 2014-01-11 02:37:54 EST
*** Bug 1051737 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 2 Christopher Meng 2014-01-11 02:40:22 EST
I doubt if it worths packaging. ;)
Comment 3 Michael Schwendt 2014-01-11 10:12:00 EST
This is just a brief look at the spec/src.rpm, since the ticket description was unusual.


Spec file name and %{name} differ in case.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#General_Naming


> BuildRequires:  python3-devel

Why? %build is empty.


> License:        AGPLv3

That doesn't match the included files.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#.22or_later_version.22_licenses


> Patch0:		command-mode.patch

This renames the executable. It keeps "env" in the shebang. It changes "python" into "python3", but the package doesn't depend on Python 3.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment


> %files

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text


Please check out the "fedora-review" tool and the 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines page, especially when submitting a package for review.
Comment 4 Michael Schwendt 2014-01-11 11:22:43 EST
*** Bug 1051726 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 5 Tonet Jallo 2014-01-12 20:43:40 EST
The upstreams name is MKBRUTUS, i will change the spec file name, mkbrutus is programed in Python 3 so depends on python3, i don't undestand you say about licence, AGPLv3 is here https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing.

Thanks for your recomendations, i will fix now, greetings

(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #3)
> This is just a brief look at the spec/src.rpm, since the ticket description
> was unusual.
> 
> 
> Spec file name and %{name} differ in case.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#General_Naming
> 
> 
> > BuildRequires:  python3-devel
> 
> Why? %build is empty.
> 
> 
> > License:        AGPLv3
> 
> That doesn't match the included files.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#.
> 22or_later_version.22_licenses
> 
> 
> > Patch0:		command-mode.patch
> 
> This renames the executable. It keeps "env" in the shebang. It changes
> "python" into "python3", but the package doesn't depend on Python 3.
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:
> Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment
> 
> 
> > %files
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
> 
> 
> Please check out the "fedora-review" tool and the 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines page, especially
> when submitting a package for review.
Comment 6 Tonet Jallo 2014-01-12 20:45:37 EST
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #2)
> I doubt if it worths packaging. ;)

how i can replace de first version?,  i'm new here
Comment 7 Michael Schwendt 2014-01-14 11:06:46 EST
> i don't undestand you say about licence, 

I wrote that "License: AGPLv3" doesn't match the included files. I pointed at the following explanation:

  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#.22or_later_version.22_licenses

Please read that paragraph, then review the licensing instructions in the files "mkbrutus.py" and "LICENSE".
Comment 8 Tonet Jallo 2014-01-26 18:54:38 EST
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #7)
> > i don't undestand you say about licence, 
> 
> I wrote that "License: AGPLv3" doesn't match the included files. I pointed
> at the following explanation:
> 
>  
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#.
> 22or_later_version.22_licenses
> 
> Please read that paragraph, then review the licensing instructions in the
> files "mkbrutus.py" and "LICENSE".

Spec URL: www.codigolinux.net/fedora/mkbrutus/MKBRUTUS.spec
SRPM URL: www.codigolinux.net/fedora/mkbrutus/MKBRUTUS-1.0.1-1.fc20.src.rpm

Hello, it's a new version, thanks for your time.

Fedora Account System Username: Tonet666p
Comment 9 Eduardo Mayorga 2014-08-30 12:22:12 EDT
The latest upstream release is now 1.0.2.

The URLs you posted are broken. And please, paste the full URL, including the protocol identifier (http://).
Comment 10 Eduardo Echeverria 2015-08-15 10:56:23 EDT
Last comment from packager since a year, I will close this ticker, feel free to open a new ticket if you want work on this in the future