Bug 2243662

Summary:	Review Request: proverif - Cryptographic protocol verifier in the formal model
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Pavol Zacik <pzacik>
Component:	Package Review	Assignee:	Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>
Status:	CLOSED WONTFIX	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	rawhide	CC:	package-review
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
URL:	https://bblanche.gitlabpages.inria.fr/%{name}
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2024-09-11 08:46:44 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Pavol Zacik 2023-10-12 12:41:27 UTC

Spec URL: https://github.com/zacikpa/review-requests/raw/main/proverif/proverif.spec
SRPM URL: https://github.com/zacikpa/review-requests/raw/main/proverif/proverif-2.04-1.fc40.src.rpm

Description: ProVerif is an automatic cryptographic protocol verifier, in the formal model (so called Dolev-Yao model). This protocol verifier is based
on a representation of the protocol by Horn clauses.

Fedora Account System Username: pzacik

Comment 1 Fedora Review Service 2023-10-12 12:53:32 UTC

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6519822
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2243662-proverif/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06519822-proverif/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 2 Pavol Zacik 2023-10-16 11:06:24 UTC

Since the license contains an invalid address of the Free Software Foundation (see rpmlint results in the review template), I contacted upstream with a request to change it.

I'm, however, not sure, whether this license issue is a blocker or not.