https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2249375
Bug ID: 2249375
Summary: Review Request: pass-audit - Audit plugin for pass
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Assignee: [email protected]
Reporter: [email protected]
QA Contact: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Spec URL:
https://git.sr.ht/~xdbob/rpm-pass-audit/blob/b9bb06e03cbb34cf35c0672803c6c0dfbaa7c4d3/pass-audit.spec
SRPM URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/xdbob/pass-audit/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06626815-pass-audit/pass-audit-1.2-3.fc40.src.rpm
Description: Audit plugin for the pass password manager
Fedora Account System Username: xdbob
This is my first package and I am in need of a sponsor
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[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. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[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 15202 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[?]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?)
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or 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
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[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).
[?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
python3-pass-audit
[x]: 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.
[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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n)
%{?-p:0.}%{lua:
[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]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: pass-audit-1.2-3.fc40.noarch.rpm
python3-pass-audit-1.2-3.fc40.noarch.rpm
pass-audit-1.2-3.fc40.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.11/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/tmpqln456is')]
checks: 31, packages: 3
pass-audit.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
python3-pass-audit.noarch: W: no-documentation
python3-pass-audit.noarch: W: description-shorter-than-summary
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken
0.2 s
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "pass-audit".
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "python3-pass-audit".
There are no files to process nor additional arguments.
Nothing to do, aborting.
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
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
checks: 31, packages: 2
0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken
0.0 s
Source checksums
----------------
https://pujol.io/keys/0xc5469996f0df68ec.asc :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
7f2a5cea6a02090f7706b2f78086d29659b19d64931494ca329b0914d6ba8e97
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
7f2a5cea6a02090f7706b2f78086d29659b19d64931494ca329b0914d6ba8e97
https://github.com/roddhjav/pass-audit/releases/download/v1.2/pass-audit-1.2.tar.gz.asc
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
d8908b890b76e7a88955721f654bfa24f4ca0c9cb85bc9354c8b76534ff5b4e9
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
d8908b890b76e7a88955721f654bfa24f4ca0c9cb85bc9354c8b76534ff5b4e9
https://github.com/roddhjav/pass-audit/releases/download/v1.2/pass-audit-1.2.tar.gz
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
570d93841346d94190bf93239783068db668f2f3228c982f746a9fa351e084af
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
570d93841346d94190bf93239783068db668f2f3228c982f746a9fa351e084af
Requires
--------
pass-audit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/bash
python3-pass-audit
python3-pass-audit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
pass
python(abi)
python3.12dist(requests)
python3.12dist(zxcvbn)
Provides
--------
pass-audit:
pass-audit
python3-pass-audit:
python-pass-audit
python3-pass-audit
python3.12-pass-audit
python3.12dist(pass-audit)
python3dist(pass-audit)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name
pass-audit --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Haskell, SugarActivity, PHP, R, Ocaml, fonts, C/C++, Perl,
Java
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
--
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=2249375
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202249375%23c0
_______________________________________________
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
