Bug 557995

OK - MUST: rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/ssldump-*
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
FIX - MUST: not named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. 
OK - MUST: spec file name matches the base package %{name}
OK - MUST: package meets the Packaging Guidelines
OK - MUST: Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines
OK - MUST: License field in spec file matches the actual license
OK - MUST: license file included in %doc
OK - MUST: spec is in American English
OK - MUST: spec is legible
OK - MUST: sources match the upstream source by MD5 ac8c28fe87508d6bfb06344ec496b1dd
OK - MUST: successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on x86_64
OK - MUST: No ExcludeArch
OK - MUST: all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
N/A - MUST: handles locales properly with %find_lang
N/A - MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
N/A - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review.
OK - MUST: owns all directories that it creates
OK - MUST: no duplicate files in the %files listing
OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly, includes %defattr(...)
OK - MUST: package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
OK - MUST: consistently uses macros
OK - MUST: package contains code, or permissable content
N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage
OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application
N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package
N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package
N/A - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'.
N/A - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix, then library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package.
N/A - MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives.
N/A - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section.
OK - MUST: package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
OK - MUST: at the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
OK - MUST: all filenames valid UTF-8


SHOULD Items:
OK - SHOULD: Source package includes license text(s) as a separate file.
N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
OK - SHOULD: builds in mock.
OK - SHOULD: compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
OK - SHOULD: functions as described.
N/A - SHOULD: Scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency.
N/A - SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg
OK - SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself: The package BuildRequires %{_includedir}/pcap.h, but this file is provided by different packages in different versions of Fedora/RHEL, so this is ok.


Other items:
OK - latest stable version ;)
OK - SourceURL valid
OK - Compiler flags ok
OK - Debuginfo complete
OK - Timestamps match upstream and are preserved when possible


Issues:
- The release tag is wrong: 0.1 indicated a pre-release package, but b3 is a post release. So is should be 1.b3%{?dist}
- The license is BSD with advertising but ssldump links against OpenSSL. Not sure if this is allowed, blocking FE-Legal.
- Build fails locally if there is more than one version of automake installed. I suggest to use the workaround I already proposed in bug 496492 comment 6. I wouldn't call this a blocker though, since the package builds fine in koji.


@Spot: Please have a look at the licensing.

There is no compatibility concern between the OpenSSL license and the BSD with advertising license (just a lot of advertising clauses (3) between the two).

Lifting FE-Legal.

Thanks Spot!

Robert:
The package version seems to be ok since b3 seems a beta3. The only remaining issue is the build failing locally with different versions of autotools installed. I still suggest to work around it, but I wouldn't call this a blocker since it builds fine in the buildsys. Therefor the package is APPROVED

Christoph, thank you for the review.


New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: ssldump
Short Description: An SSLv3/TLS network protocol analyzer
Owners: robert
Branches: EL-4 EL-5 F-11 F-12
InitialCC:

CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).

ssldump-0.9-0.1.b3.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ssldump-0.9-0.1.b3.fc12

ssldump-0.9-0.1.b3.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ssldump-0.9-0.1.b3.fc11

ssldump-0.9-0.1.b3.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ssldump-0.9-0.1.b3.el5

ssldump-0.9-0.1.b3.el4 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 4.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ssldump-0.9-0.1.b3.el4

ssldump-0.9-0.1.b3.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

ssldump-0.9-0.1.b3.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

ssldump-0.9-0.1.b3.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

ssldump-0.9-0.1.b3.el4 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 4 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.