Hi, Just did some checks on your package and found this package has many problems. 1. suricata has its own website: suricata-ids.org 2. RPM spec contains obsoleted tags: BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT %clean %defattr(-,root,root,-) Since suricata never goes into EPEL, I think it's quite normal to drop them. *************************8<************************* 3. suricata bundles libhtp. This is a serious problem: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries build.log: Non-bundled htp: no Append --enable-non-bundled-htp to the %configure. *************************>8************************* 4. I don't think %doc doc/INSTALL is a good idea, in contrast, it's useless. 5. %{python_sitelib} -> %{python2_sitelib} python-devel -> python2-devel https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires 6. Mix using %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, please only choose one of them in the spec. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS 7. Obsoleted systemd packaging tags: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Systemd 8. Koji build.log: checking for spatch... no Warning! spatch not found, you will not be able to run code checking with coccinelle get it from http://coccinelle.lip6.fr or install from your distribution Missing BR coccinelle. (Verify if we need code analysis) 9. You just enabled lua support, are you sure lua 5.2 is supported? If not, We have lua 5.1 fallback in the repo: compat-lua 10. checking for doxygen... no Missing BR doxygen.
Thanks for the review. 1) changed. 2) There is a bz asking for EPEL, so I'm leaving it. I'll potentially fix item #3 if/when I fix EPEL support. 3) For years the bundled version was the only supported one. It was documented that if you use anything else, you are on your own. The bundled one is the only one that is QA'ed. Not sure the suricata project has reached a point where they are ready for any random version of libhtp or they would have dropped the bundled library completely. I'm inclined to leave as is for now and start a discussion upstream about the topic. 4) it used to be more than pointing to a web site. deleted. 5) fixed 6) fixed 7) All I saw was Requires(*) that needed fixing. If you see something else, please be more specific. 8) spatch is for QA testing. We don't use it. Added --disable-coccinelle to make it clear 9) It seems to work. If there was a bug reported against lua I could look at changing to the compat library 10) doxygen is not needed I don't see anything reported important enough to recall the current update. So, I will only check this into the master branch and f20 can pick it up on the next upstream update. 2.0.2-2 is now in koji. Thanks.
(In reply to Steve Grubb from comment #1) > 3) For years the bundled version was the only supported one. It was > documented that if you use anything else, you are on your own. The bundled > one is the only one that is QA'ed. Not sure the suricata project has reached > a point where they are ready for any random version of libhtp or they would > have dropped the bundled library completely. I'm inclined to leave as is for > now and start a discussion upstream about the topic. From the website I can see that it mentions the external dependency with version specified, doesn't it indicated that you could have a try? Any way, it's right, we need to get an answer from upstream first. And, if FESCo has granted such exception, an appropriate Provides: should be in the spec as well.
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 22 development cycle. Changing version to '22'. More information and reason for this action is here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Program_Management/HouseKeeping/Fedora22
Fedora 22 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2016-07-19. Fedora 22 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.