https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2373124
Benson Muite <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST --- Comment #22 from Benson Muite <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Göran Uddeborg from comment #19) > Thanks again for your continued review! In reply to your comments: > > a) Nothing to do here, right? > Yes > b) Here I'm confused. portsentry-fail2ban DOES already require the main > package. What is it I'm missing? > Misread the spec file. > c) I didn't think the documentation was big enough for a separate doc > package, but I don't mind making one if you think so. A "recommends" from > the main package is appropriate, don't you think? (I did not include the > manual pages in the doc subpackage, that doesn't seem to be how others do > it.) This is ok. > > first (☺) d) Good catch. (I obviously need look closer at the output of > "licensecheck"!) > Thanks for updating. > first e) I've suggested it upstreams: > https://github.com/portsentry/portsentry/issues/173 > > second d) As far as I can understand it should be ok. I'm testing it and > don't see any immediate problems. I've suggested that too upstreams: > https://github.com/portsentry/portsentry/issues/174 > Ok > second e) Here again I'm confused. The log file lives directly in /var/log, > owned by "fileystem". That is one of the explicit exceptions where a package > should not own the directory. > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ > #_file_and_directory_ownership > No other package except for "filesystem" owns /var/log. > Ok Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. Note: portsentry-2.0.5-2.spec should be portsentry.spec See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_spec_file_naming ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* Common Public License 1.0", "BSD 1-Clause License". 171 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/portsentry/2373124-portsentry-2.0.5- 2/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: 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. [-]: 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. [x]: 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. [ ]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in portsentry [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 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== 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). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in portsentry-fail2ban [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: portsentry-2.0.5-2.fc44.x86_64.rpm portsentry-doc-2.0.5-2.fc44.noarch.rpm portsentry-fail2ban-2.0.5-2.fc44.noarch.rpm portsentry-2.0.5-2.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpb_2gb1m2')] checks: 32, packages: 4 portsentry.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch1: private-devices.patch portsentry-fail2ban.noarch: W: no-documentation portsentry.x86_64: E: logrotate-log-dir-not-packaged /var/log 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 16 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: portsentry-debuginfo-2.0.5-2.fc44.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpcgzdim_3')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory (none): W: unable to load spellchecking dictionary for sv. (none): W: unable to load spellchecking dictionary for sv. (none): W: unable to load spellchecking dictionary for sv. (none): W: unable to load spellchecking dictionary for sv. (none): W: unable to load spellchecking dictionary for sv. (none): W: unable to load spellchecking dictionary for sv. ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 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: 4 portsentry-fail2ban.noarch: W: no-documentation portsentry.x86_64: E: logrotate-log-dir-not-packaged /var/log 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 18 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.4 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/portsentry/portsentry/archive/v2.0.5/portsentry-2.0.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5407a3687bb12318f3ba6b4d5d28ea9bd0371949e1a613c3d4afedb949671d33 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5407a3687bb12318f3ba6b4d5d28ea9bd0371949e1a613c3d4afedb949671d33 Requires -------- portsentry (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh config(portsentry) libc.so.6()(64bit) libpcap.so.1()(64bit) logrotate rtld(GNU_HASH) portsentry-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): portsentry portsentry-fail2ban (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(portsentry-fail2ban) fail2ban-server portsentry Provides -------- portsentry: config(portsentry) portsentry portsentry(x86-64) portsentry-doc: portsentry-doc portsentry-fail2ban: config(portsentry-fail2ban) portsentry-fail2ban Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/portsentry/2373124-portsentry-2.0.5-2/srpm/portsentry-2.0.5-2.spec 2025-10-08 17:58:40.069682224 +0300 +++ /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/portsentry/2373124-portsentry-2.0.5-2/srpm-unpacked/portsentry.spec 2025-10-07 03:00:00.000000000 +0300 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.8.3) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 2; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + Name: portsentry @@ -132,3 +142,28 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Tue Oct 07 2025 Göran Uddeborg <[email protected]> - 2.0.5-2 +- Adjust according to a third round of review comments + +* Tue Sep 09 2025 Göran Uddeborg <[email protected]> - 2.0.5-1 +- Upgrade to release 2.0.5 + +* Tue Sep 02 2025 Göran Uddeborg <[email protected]> - 2.0.4-1 +- Upgrade to release 2.0.4 + +* Tue Aug 19 2025 Göran Uddeborg <[email protected]> - 2.0.3^git9a71c18-1 +- Include upstreams patch to check for service per IP + +* Mon Aug 18 2025 Göran Uddeborg <[email protected]> - 2.0.3-2 +- Adjust according to a second round of review comments + +* Tue Aug 05 2025 Göran Uddeborg <[email protected]> - 2.0.3-1 +- Adjust according to comments in the review +- Upgrade to version 2.0.3 + +* Wed Jul 02 2025 Göran Uddeborg <[email protected]> - 2.0.2-1 +- Upgrade to version 2.0.2 + +* Tue Jun 17 2025 Göran Uddeborg <[email protected]> - 2.0.1^git3c0b5a3-1 +- Initial packaging put up for review +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2373124 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, SugarActivity, R, Ocaml, Perl, Java, Python, fonts, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Please check that the patch is applied using %autosetup -p1 -n portsentry-%{version} instead of %forgeautosetup -p1 worked for me b) Please fix name of spec file c) Approved. Please apply fixes before import. d) Review of one of: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2399993 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2401972 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2385917 would be appreciated if time and expertise allow -- 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=2373124 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202373124%23c22 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] 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/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
