Spec Name or Url: http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/nessus-libraries.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/nessus-libraries-2.2.6-1.src.rpm Description: Support libraries for nessus
I've been playing with nessus some time ago. You may want to take a look at my patches and spec files â http://fedora.pl/~gajownik/nessus/ IIRC nessus-plugins was not finished -- after one week of patching I was fed up ;-) https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-July/msg00380.html
Thanks for posting... I will take a look and see what I can use/integrate if you don't mind :)
(In reply to comment #2) > I will take a look and see what I can use/integrate if you don't mind :) Shure. That's the reason why I gave you link to these patches :)
Ok here are the first tuneups :) Thanks again =) http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/nessus-libraries.spec http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/nessus-libraries-2.2.6-2.src.rpm
Why disable libpcap? It's already a BuildRequirement even. And $RPM_BUILD_ROOT not consistent. Otherwise looks good.
Created attachment 125645 [details] spec diff to enable libpcap and make buildroot consistent
(In reply to comment #5) > Why disable libpcap? ./configure --help [snip] --enable-nessuspcap use the libpcap that comes with this package Well, `--disable-nessuspcap' forces nessus-libraries to use system libpcap, which is a Good Thing⢠;-)
Will fix the buildroot stuff. As for the libpcap Dawid is right. I'd rather use the system one. Any other comments?
Oh, I assumed the opposite for --disble-nessuspcap Nope. Good: - rpmlint checks return: * no-version-in-last-changelog, ignoring, long lines - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (GPL) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file - devel package ok - no .la files - post/postun ldconfig ok - devel requires base package n-v-r APPROVED.
Imported and pushed. Thanks for the review.