[Bug 2303756] Review Request: showcert - Inspect TLS certificates presented by remote servers

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2303756

Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> ---
Looks good although I see one small issue - using %pyupi_source w/o name
parameter is deprecated. See
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#pypi_source.
Please change it to %{pypi_source %{name}} or something before uploading. Apart
from that I don't see any other issues so here is my formal

Package Review
==============

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



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

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 (MIT).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package owns all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Not a GUI application.
[-]: No development files.
[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.
[-]: 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 does not contain systemd file(s).
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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 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 does not use a name that already exists.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 5996 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
     process.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python (see my note above).
[x]: Package contains BR: python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
     packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
     versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
     use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

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

Generic:
[-]: 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).
[?]: I did not test if the package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged (0.2.3).
[X]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are NOT verified with gpgverify because upstream does not 
     publish signatures.
[-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures (noarch).
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass (just importing).
[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 all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: showcert-0.2.3-1.fc41.noarch.rpm
          showcert-0.2.3-1.fc41.src.rpm
==========================================================================================================================================
rpmlint session starts
==========================================================================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmpifxfzy1p')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

showcert.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized inspect TLS certificates presented
by remote servers
showcert.src: W: summary-not-capitalized inspect TLS certificates presented by
remote servers
showcert.src: E: spelling-error ('gencert', '%description -l en_US gencert ->
gen cert, gen-cert, emergence')
showcert.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gencert
showcert.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary showcert
====================================================================================================
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings, 10 filtered, 1
badness; has taken 1.5 s
=====================================================================================================




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/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
checks: 32, packages: 1

showcert.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized inspect TLS certificates presented
by remote servers
showcert.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gencert
showcert.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary showcert
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 6 filtered, 0
badness; has taken 0.3 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/s/showcert/showcert-0.2.3.tar.gz
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
1e58091bd7fcb07ffd0252b25e2cc89fa6bd2b2ecc7c6a79fc243acae07fcbe4
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
1e58091bd7fcb07ffd0252b25e2cc89fa6bd2b2ecc7c6a79fc243acae07fcbe4


Requires
--------
showcert (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    python(abi)
    python3.13dist(certifi)
    python3.13dist(pem)
    python3.13dist(pyopenssl)



Provides
--------
showcert:
    python3.13dist(showcert)
    python3dist(showcert)
    showcert



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2303756
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Java, Ocaml, Haskell, SugarActivity, PHP, fonts, Perl, C/C++,
R
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH


This package is 

================
=== APPROVED ===
================


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2303756

Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202303756%23c2

-- 
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux