Spec URL: http://folk.ntnu.no/sindrb/packages/green_nyc/onesixtyone.spec SRPM URL: http://folk.ntnu.no/sindrb/packages/green_nyc/onesixtyone-0.3.2-1.fc7.src.rpm Description: onesixtyone takes a different approach to SNMP scanning. It takes advantage of the fact that SNMP is a connectionless protocol and sends all SNMP requests as fast as it can. Then the scanner waits for responses to come back and logs them, in a fashion similar to Nmap ping sweeps.
Builds fine for me; rpmlint has only one complaint: W: onesixtyone incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.32-1 0.3.2-1.fc7 Looks like its just a typo in the changelog entry. The compiler isn't called with the proper set of flags. You need to change your make line to: make CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" %{?_smp_mflags} * source files match upstream: 450806718f72a75ea108e3675ca7856f15c518fcf517df68483c486c39910d02 onesixtyone-0.3.2.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text not included upstream. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper (none). X compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly X debuginfo package is empty due to the lack of proper compiler flags. X rpmlint has a valid complaint. * final provides and requires are sane. * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. Manual testing shows that everything works fine. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app.
Updated: - Change make to really call proper flags Spec URL: http://folk.ntnu.no/sindrb/packages/green_nyc/onesixtyone.spec SRPM URL: http://folk.ntnu.no/sindrb/packages/green_nyc/onesixtyone-0.3.2-2.fc7.src.rpm
Well, I thought that work, and indeed I thought I tried it, but the makefile doesn't pass CFLAGS and I get this: gcc -o onesixtyone onesixtyone.c which results in a busted debuginfo package, no optimization and a binary built with none of the necessary security flags. A quick tweak to the Makefile gets things building OK; I'll attach a patch. You just need to apply it in %prep and the Makefile should pick up CFLAGS and build things properly. Let me know if you need info on doing that.
Created attachment 155221 [details] onesixtyone-makefile.patch Just add Patch0: onesixtyone-makefile.patch under Source0:, and then %patch0 at the end of %prep. That should get things building properly, or at least it seems to work for me.
Updated: - Added patch Spec URL: http://folk.ntnu.no/sindrb/packages/green_nyc/onesixtyone.spec SRPM URL: http://folk.ntnu.no/sindrb/packages/green_nyc/onesixtyone-0.3.2-3.fc7.src.rpm
I seem to have dropped the ball here, sorry. Everything looks good: rpmlint is quiet now. The compiler is called correctly. The debuginfo package looks fine. APPROVED
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: onesixtyone Short Description: An efficient SNMP scanner Owners: foolish Branches: F-7 FC-6 EL-4 El-5
CVS done.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: onesixtyone New Branches: f17 f16 Owners: rebus InitialCC: [add any required explanatory text here] Hello, I took over the ownership of the package and I would like to build it for Fedora 16/17 and keep it maintained for EL 5/6 Thank you Michal Ambroz
Git done (by process-git-requests). Created f16, f17==devel and already exists.