Bug 2243662 - Review Request: proverif - Cryptographic protocol verifier in the formal model
Summary: Review Request: proverif - Cryptographic protocol verifier in the formal model
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: https://bblanche.gitlabpages.inria.fr...
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2023-10-12 12:41 UTC by Pavol Zacik
Modified: 2024-09-11 08:46 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2024-09-11 08:46:44 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

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.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.