Bug 2418609 - Review Request: dnscap - Network capture utility designed specifically for DNS traffic
Summary: Review Request: dnscap - Network capture utility designed specifically for DN...
Keywords:
Status: RELEASE_PENDING
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Petr Menšík
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: https://www.dns-oarc.net/files/dnscap
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 2416980 2418607
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2025-12-03 15:59 UTC by Fedor Vorobev
Modified: 2025-12-08 13:09 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:
Type: ---
Embargoed:
pemensik: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)
The .spec file difference from Copr build 9865278 to 9865325 (1.33 KB, patch)
2025-12-04 13:36 UTC, Fedora Review Service
no flags Details | Diff

Description Fedor Vorobev 2025-12-03 15:59:53 UTC
Spec URL: https://codeberg.org/fvorobev/dnscap/raw/branch/main/rpm/dnscap.spec
SRPM URL: https://codeberg.org/fvorobev/dnscap/raw/branch/main/rpm/dnscap-2.5.0-2.fc44.src.rpm
Description:
dnscap is a network capture utility designed specifically for DNS
traffic. It produces binary data in pcap(3) format. This utility
is similar to tcpdump(1), but has a number of features tailored
to DNS transactions and protocol options.

Fedora Account System Username: fvorobev

Comment 1 Fedora Review Service 2025-12-03 21:05:41 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9863307
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2418609-dnscap/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09863307-dnscap/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
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 Petr Menšík 2025-12-04 11:18:28 UTC
src/dnscap.h includes isc/list.h.

Two files in isc/ directory are licensed under ISC license. If that is used to build the binary package and it seems so, License: tag has to contain it also.

URL specified by the package does not work. Please set it either to codeberg source page or https://www.dns-oarc.net/tools/dnscap

Instead, add separate variable for files, which can be reused in url. Although until we have only single file, using that url base in Source0 could be enough.

%global files https://www.dns-oarc.net/files/%{name}
...
Source0:        %{files}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

I would put empty line after your %changelog entry, even if upstream has chosen to not include empty lines. rpmdev-bumpspec uses that and people will use in on Fedora package anyway.

There is no %license marked file, that has to be fixed.

Documentation should mark %doc files. It is not required to install them by make install. %doc directive will copy them into appropriate documentation directory for the package, ensures it keeps timestamp of original files.
Instead of adding whole directory, we should add only separate files.
%doc README.md CHANGES CONTRIBUTORS

I would include CONTRIBUTORS only into devel subpackage. I doubt that is needed by dependencies using it only.

Comment 3 Fedor Vorobev 2025-12-04 12:57:56 UTC
Spec URL: https://codeberg.org/fvorobev/dnscap/raw/branch/main/rpm/dnscap.spec
SRPM URL: https://codeberg.org/fvorobev/dnscap/raw/branch/main/rpm/dnscap-2.5.0-2.fc44.src.rpm

- Added the ISC license to the `License:` tag.
- Adjusted the packaged files to adhere to guidelines.
- Added an empty line after my changelog entry.
- Changed `URL:` tag.

> I would include CONTRIBUTORS only into devel subpackage. I doubt that is needed by dependencies using it only.
This is an application package that does not have a -devel subpackage.

Comment 4 Fedora Review Service 2025-12-04 12:59:55 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9865278
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2418609-dnscap/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09865278-dnscap/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
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 5 Fedor Vorobev 2025-12-04 13:34:41 UTC
Spec URL: https://codeberg.org/fvorobev/dnscap/raw/branch/main/rpm/dnscap.spec
SRPM URL: https://codeberg.org/fvorobev/dnscap/raw/branch/main/rpm/dnscap-2.5.0-2.fc44.src.rpm

Sorry, forgot to update the SRPM before sending the links and triggering the bot, so it took the old SRPM with an old .spec.

Comment 6 Fedora Review Service 2025-12-04 13:36:53 UTC
Created attachment 2117387 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 9865278 to 9865325

Comment 7 Fedora Review Service 2025-12-04 13:36:55 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9865325
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2418609-dnscap/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09865325-dnscap/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
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 8 Petr Menšík 2025-12-05 13:15:56 UTC
Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
  Note: this is a new review of obsoleted package
  Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
  https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/dnscap
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names



===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-Clause License", "FSF Unlimited
     License (with License Retention) and/or GNU General Public License
     v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or
     later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later",
     "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "X11 License [generated
     file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "ISC License",
     "FSF All Permissive License", "FSF Unlimited License (with License
     Retention) and/or GNU General Public License, Version 2", "FSF
     Unlimited License (with License Retention)", "*No copyright* Public
     domain". 162 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in
     /home/pemensik/fedora/rawhide/2418609-dnscap/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 51906 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
     license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
     license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: dnscap-2.5.0-2.fc44.x86_64.rpm
          dnscap-2.5.0-2.fc44.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpmvyl3qx3')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

dnscap.src: E: spelling-error ('pcap', '%description -l en_US pcap -> pap, cap, p cap')
dnscap.src: E: spelling-error ('tcpdump', '%description -l en_US tcpdump -> dumpsite')
dnscap.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('pcap', '%description -l en_US pcap -> pap, cap, p cap')
dnscap.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('tcpdump', '%description -l en_US tcpdump -> dumpsite')
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.4 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: dnscap-debuginfo-2.5.0-2.fc44.x86_64.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp3bx369yk')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 34 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s 





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 2

dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/anonaes128.so /lib64/libbz2.so.1
dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/anonaes128.so /lib64/libz.so.1
dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/anonaes128.so /lib64/libcryptopANT.so.1
dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/anonaes128.so /lib64/libpcap.so.1
dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/anonmask.so /lib64/libbz2.so.1
dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/anonmask.so /lib64/libz.so.1
dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/anonmask.so /lib64/libcryptopANT.so.1
dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/anonmask.so /lib64/libpcap.so.1
dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/asudp.so /lib64/libbz2.so.1
dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/asudp.so /lib64/libz.so.1
dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/asudp.so /lib64/libcryptopANT.so.1
dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/asudp.so /lib64/libpcap.so.1
dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/cryptopan.so /lib64/libbz2.so.1
dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/cryptopan.so /lib64/libz.so.1
dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/cryptopan.so /lib64/libcryptopANT.so.1
dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/cryptopan.so /lib64/libpcap.so.1
dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/cryptopant.so /lib64/libcrypto.so.3
dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/cryptopant.so /lib64/libbz2.so.1
dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/cryptopant.so /lib64/libz.so.1
dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/cryptopant.so /lib64/libpcap.so.1
dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/eventlog.so /lib64/libbz2.so.1
dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/eventlog.so /lib64/libz.so.1
dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/eventlog.so /lib64/libcryptopANT.so.1
dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/eventlog.so /lib64/libpcap.so.1
dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/ipcrypt.so /lib64/libbz2.so.1
dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/ipcrypt.so /lib64/libz.so.1
dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/ipcrypt.so /lib64/libcryptopANT.so.1
dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/ipcrypt.so /lib64/libpcap.so.1
dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/pcapdump.so /lib64/libbz2.so.1
dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/pcapdump.so /lib64/libz.so.1
dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/pcapdump.so /lib64/libcryptopANT.so.1
dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/royparse.so /lib64/libbz2.so.1
dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/royparse.so /lib64/libz.so.1
dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/royparse.so /lib64/libcryptopANT.so.1
dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/rssm.so /lib64/libbz2.so.1
dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/rssm.so /lib64/libz.so.1
dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/rssm.so /lib64/libcryptopANT.so.1
dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/rssm.so /lib64/libpcap.so.1
dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/rzkeychange.so /lib64/libbz2.so.1
dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/rzkeychange.so /lib64/libz.so.1
dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/rzkeychange.so /lib64/libcryptopANT.so.1
dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/rzkeychange.so /lib64/libpcap.so.1
dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/txtout.so /lib64/libbz2.so.1
dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/txtout.so /lib64/libz.so.1
dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/txtout.so /lib64/libcryptopANT.so.1
dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/txtout.so /lib64/libpcap.so.1
dnscap.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('pcap', '%description -l en_US pcap -> pap, cap, p cap')
dnscap.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('tcpdump', '%description -l en_US tcpdump -> dumpsite')
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 46 warnings, 49 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 2.5 s 



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
dnscap: /usr/lib64/dnscap/anonaes128.so
dnscap: /usr/lib64/dnscap/anonmask.so
dnscap: /usr/lib64/dnscap/asudp.so
dnscap: /usr/lib64/dnscap/cryptopan.so
dnscap: /usr/lib64/dnscap/cryptopant.so
dnscap: /usr/lib64/dnscap/eventlog.so
dnscap: /usr/lib64/dnscap/ipcrypt.so
dnscap: /usr/lib64/dnscap/pcapdump.so
dnscap: /usr/lib64/dnscap/royparse.so
dnscap: /usr/lib64/dnscap/rssm.so
dnscap: /usr/lib64/dnscap/rzkeychange.so
dnscap: /usr/lib64/dnscap/txtout.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://www.dns-oarc.net/files/dnscap/dnscap-2.5.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : be9f8fe2b96463e0954d4daa3de5ef001d064db4ec53158aa01914b9aa3abe24
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : be9f8fe2b96463e0954d4daa3de5ef001d064db4ec53158aa01914b9aa3abe24


Requires
--------
dnscap (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/perl
    libbz2.so.1()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcrypto.so.3()(64bit)
    libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit)
    libcryptopANT.so.1()(64bit)
    libldns.so.3()(64bit)
    liblz4.so.1()(64bit)
    liblzma.so.5()(64bit)
    liblzma.so.5(XZ_5.0)(64bit)
    libpcap.so.1()(64bit)
    libz.so.1()(64bit)
    libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.3.3)(64bit)
    libzstd.so.1()(64bit)
    perl(YAML)
    perl(strict)
    perl(warnings)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
dnscap:
    dnscap
    dnscap(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2418609 -L /tmp/dnscap-deps/
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Perl, fonts, Python, Haskell, PHP, Ocaml, Java, R, SugarActivity
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Built with local dependencies:
    /tmp/dnscap-deps/python3-ldns-1.9.0-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm
    /tmp/dnscap-deps/python3-ldns-debuginfo-1.9.0-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm
    /tmp/dnscap-deps/perl-ldns-1.9.0-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm
    /tmp/dnscap-deps/perl-ldns-debuginfo-1.9.0-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm
    /tmp/dnscap-deps/ldns-1.9.0-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm
    /tmp/dnscap-deps/ldns-1.9.0-1.fc44.src.rpm
    /tmp/dnscap-deps/ldns-utils-1.9.0-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm
    /tmp/dnscap-deps/ldns-utils-debuginfo-1.9.0-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm
    /tmp/dnscap-deps/ldns-doc-1.9.0-1.fc44.noarch.rpm
    /tmp/dnscap-deps/ldns-devel-1.9.0-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm
    /tmp/dnscap-deps/ldns-debugsource-1.9.0-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm
    /tmp/dnscap-deps/ldns-debuginfo-1.9.0-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm
    /tmp/dnscap-deps/cryptopant-1.3.2-2.fc44.x86_64.rpm
    /tmp/dnscap-deps/cryptopant-1.3.2-2.fc44.src.rpm
    /tmp/dnscap-deps/cryptopant-utils-1.3.2-2.fc44.x86_64.rpm
    /tmp/dnscap-deps/cryptopant-utils-debuginfo-1.3.2-2.fc44.x86_64.rpm
    /tmp/dnscap-deps/cryptopant-devel-1.3.2-2.fc44.x86_64.rpm
    /tmp/dnscap-deps/cryptopant-debugsource-1.3.2-2.fc44.x86_64.rpm
    /tmp/dnscap-deps/cryptopant-debuginfo-1.3.2-2.fc44.x86_64.rpm

Comment 9 Petr Menšík 2025-12-05 13:17:49 UTC
Thank you for the first package review it is good, multiple issues found. Great job Fedor!

Comment 10 Jaroslav Škarvada 2025-12-08 00:43:31 UTC
Mostly LGTM, some more things spotted:

> dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/anonaes128.so /lib64/libbz2.so.1
> dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/anonaes128.so /lib64/libz.so.1
> dnscap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/dnscap/anonaes128.so /lib64/libcryptopANT.so.1
...
No need to add unused deps. Patch the used libtool or the Makefiles to drop the deps, i.e. move the "-Wl,--as-needed" before the "-lcrypto -lbz2 -lz -lcryptopANT -ldl -lpcap..." (and all used libs), not after it, otherwise unused deps are added.

> Group:          Productivity/Networking/DNS/Utilities
RPM groups are obsoleted for a long time.

> Source0:        %{filesurl}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
If you aren't manipulating the specific sources or it's the only source file, no need to number it.

> %if 0%{?suse_version} || 0%{?sle_version}
If it isn't upstream SPEC directly re-used (e.g. in Packit automation) this could be probably dropped.

> rm %{buildroot}/%{_docdir}/%{name}/LICENSE
Maybe rather 'rm -f' to never ask (and block the script e.g. in case of some error) and ignore non-existent files.

> * Tue Oct 21 2025 Jerry Lundström <lundstrom.jerry> 2.5.0-1
If it is based on some existing SPEC, it should be noted in the comment with the credit for the orignal SPEC and if the license of the original SPEC differs from the Fedora default SPEC license, it should be also noted.

Comment 12 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2025-12-08 13:09:44 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/dnscap


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