Bug 2400860
| Summary: | Review Request: bettercap - The Swiss Army knife for 802.11, BLE, HID, CAN-bus, IPv4 and IPv6 networks reconnaissance and MITM attacks | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <eclipseo> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> |
| Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | package-review, philip.wyett |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | --- | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2026-04-02 00:45:20 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: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 201449 | ||
|
Description
Robert-André Mauchin 🐧
2025-10-01 16:57:25 UTC
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9637070 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2400860-bettercap/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09637070-bettercap/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bettercap Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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. Hi,
Sorry that nobody has had a chance to look at your submission. I will take a first look.
Build local:
RPM build warnings:
/builddir/build/SPECS/bettercap.spec line 40: autopatch: no matching patches in range
File listed twice: /usr/share/licenses/bettercap
Build COPR:
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp5xg8ha0v')]
checks: 32, packages: 2
bettercap.src: E: summary-too-long The Swiss Army knife for 802.11, BLE, HID, CAN-bus, IPv4 and IPv6 networks reconnaissance and MITM attacks
bettercap.x86_64: E: summary-too-long The Swiss Army knife for 802.11, BLE, HID, CAN-bus, IPv4 and IPv6 networks reconnaissance and MITM attacks
bettercap.spec: W: specfile-warning warning: /tmp/rpmlint.bettercap-2.41.4-1.fc45.src.rpm.epc56b13/bettercap.spec line 40: autopatch: no matching patches in range
bettercap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bettercap
bettercap.spec: W: invalid-url Source1: bettercap-2.41.4-vendor.tar.bz2
bettercap.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/bettercap/vendor/github.com/evilsocket/islazy/LICENSE.md /usr/share/licenses/bettercap/LICENSE.md:/usr/share/licenses/bettercap/vendor/github.com/bettercap/nrf24/LICENSE.md:/usr/share/licenses/bettercap/vendor/github.com/bettercap/recording/LICENSE.md
bettercap.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/bettercap/vendor/modules.txt /usr/share/licenses/bettercap/modules.txt
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings, 43 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 2.3 s
* I would personally add 'BuildRequires: pkg-config'.
Regards
Phil
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it. |