[Bug 1382875] Review Request: psad - Port Scan Attack Detector (psad) watches for suspect traffic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382875 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed|2016-11-03 14:21:10 |2016-11-19 16:02:18 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- psad-2.4.3-3.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1382875] Review Request: psad - Port Scan Attack Detector (psad) watches for suspect traffic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382875 Jon Disnard changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ON_QA CC||jdisn...@redhat.com Resolution|ERRATA |--- Keywords||Reopened -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1382875] Review Request: psad - Port Scan Attack Detector (psad) watches for suspect traffic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382875 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2016-11-03 14:21:10 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- psad-2.4.3-3.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1382875] Review Request: psad - Port Scan Attack Detector (psad) watches for suspect traffic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382875 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- psad-2.4.3-3.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-7eada51d4c -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1382875] Review Request: psad - Port Scan Attack Detector (psad) watches for suspect traffic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382875 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ON_QA --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- psad-2.4.3-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-7eada51d4c -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1382875] Review Request: psad - Port Scan Attack Detector (psad) watches for suspect traffic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382875 --- Comment #13 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski --- (In reply to Jens Lody from comment #11) > Sorry for the delay. > > Looks good now. > > Maybe the temporary selinux-fix should get a comment in the spec (besides > the changelog) to make it more easy to see where it belongs to or when it > was added. > But that's again more a matter of taste. > > Package approved. Thanks for the review, Jens. I'll add a comment near the scriptlet with a reference to bug 1174309. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1382875] Review Request: psad - Port Scan Attack Detector (psad) watches for suspect traffic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382875 --- Comment #12 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #9) > A bug should be filed against selinux-policy-targeted. I guess it'd help to > run the daemon in permissive mode and attach the AVC log to the bug. Zbyszek, a bug was filed a long time ago: bug 1174309. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1382875] Review Request: psad - Port Scan Attack Detector (psad) watches for suspect traffic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382875 Jens Lody changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #11 from Jens Lody --- Sorry for the delay. Looks good now. Maybe the temporary selinux-fix should get a comment in the spec (besides the changelog) to make it more easy to see where it belongs to or when it was added. But that's again more a matter of taste. Package 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1382875] Review Request: psad - Port Scan Attack Detector (psad) watches for suspect traffic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382875 --- Comment #10 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski --- (In reply to Jens Lody from comment #3) > - Permissions on files are set properly. > Note: See rpmlint output > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions > > The cause for the 0700 file-permissions should be documented in spec-file. Fixed. [...] > = > > [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "BSD (3 > clause)", "Unknown or generated". 63 files have unknown license. > Detailed output of licensecheck in > /home/jens/reviews/rawhide/1382875-psad/licensecheck.txt > > Not sure about the two strl*.c files with BSD3 license, but I guess they > should be mentioned in license-tag GPLv2+ and BSD is effectively GPLv2+, as mentioned in comment #5. > > = > > [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /etc/logrotate.d(samba- > common, logrotate, ppp, sssd-common) > > Is "%dir /etc/logrotate.d" really needed ? Yes. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#The_directory_is_owned_by_a_package_which_is_not_required_for_your_package_to_function > = > > [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise > justified. > A comment is missing in spec/and patch-file. Fixed. > = > > [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported > architectures. > Not tested/testable. Actually this is testable using koji. > psad.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/psad/LICENSE > psad-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/src/debug/psad-2.4.3/psad.h > psad-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/src/debug/psad-2.4.3/psad_funcs.c > psad-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/src/debug/psad-2.4.3/kmsgsd.c > > Upstream should be informed, the source/header-files can be patched, but > there is no need to. > The LICENSE-file should not be changed. I'll inform upstream. Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/psad/psad.spec SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/psad/psad-2.4.3-2.fc24.src.rpm * Sun Oct 09 2016 Dominik Mierzejewski - 2.4.3-2 - fix SELinux policy temporarily (#1040425) - document patch purpose and file/dir permissions -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1382875] Review Request: psad - Port Scan Attack Detector (psad) watches for suspect traffic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382875 --- Comment #9 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- A bug should be filed against selinux-policy-targeted. I guess it'd help to run the daemon in permissive mode and attach the AVC log to the bug. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1382875] Review Request: psad - Port Scan Attack Detector (psad) watches for suspect traffic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382875 --- Comment #8 from Jens Lody --- (In reply to Jens Lody from comment #7) > Another (important) point: > > psad needs a selinux-policy to work with selinux set to enforcing. As I have seen, a policy for psad is in the selinux-policy-targeted-package, but this has to be fixed for the new version using systemd instead of sysv init-scripts. Who does this normally? How is it triggered ? -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1382875] Review Request: psad - Port Scan Attack Detector (psad) watches for suspect traffic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382875 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On|1382865 | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382865 [Bug 1382865] manually specified Requires: perl(foo) are not printed by rpmbuild -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1382875] Review Request: psad - Port Scan Attack Detector (psad) watches for suspect traffic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382875 --- Comment #7 from Jens Lody --- Another (important) point: psad needs a selinux-policy to work with selinux set to enforcing. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1382875] Review Request: psad - Port Scan Attack Detector (psad) watches for suspect traffic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382875 --- Comment #6 from Jens Lody --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #5) > > Not sure about the two strl*.c files with BSD3 license, but I guess they > > should be mentioned in license-tag > > Jens, please see > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ?rd=Licensing/ > FAQ#Does_the_License:_tag_cover_the_SRPM_or_the_binary_RPM.3F, and also the > discussion of the effective license there. GPL trumps BSD in this case. > Thanks for clarifying this ! -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1382875] Review Request: psad - Port Scan Attack Detector (psad) watches for suspect traffic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382875 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl --- Comment #5 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- > Not sure about the two strl*.c files with BSD3 license, but I guess they > should be mentioned in license-tag Jens, please see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ?rd=Licensing/FAQ#Does_the_License:_tag_cover_the_SRPM_or_the_binary_RPM.3F, and also the discussion of the effective license there. GPL trumps BSD in this case. -- I mostly wanted to add a comment that the systemd units look fine. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1382875] Review Request: psad - Port Scan Attack Detector (psad) watches for suspect traffic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382875
--- Comment #3 from Jens Lody ---
- Permissions on files are set properly.
Note: See rpmlint output
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions
The cause for the 0700 file-permissions should be documented in spec-file.
=
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/psad
See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names
Obviously fals-positive for unretiremnent.
=
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "BSD (3
clause)", "Unknown or generated". 63 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/jens/reviews/rawhide/1382875-psad/licensecheck.txt
Not sure about the two strl*.c files with BSD3 license, but I guess they should
be
mentioned in license-tag
=
[ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /etc/logrotate.d(samba-
common, logrotate, ppp, sssd-common)
Is "%dir /etc/logrotate.d" really needed ?
=
[?]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
That's more or less) matter of taste and /etc is obviously shorter than
%{_sysconfdir}, so it's allowed by the guidelines.
=
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
A comment is missing in spec/and patch-file.
=
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Not tested/testable.
=
spelling errors are mostly false positives.
=
psad.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm * 700
psad.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm * 700
See above
=
psad.x86_64: E: dir-or-file-in-var-run *
psad.x86_64: E: non-readable * 700
Covered by conf-file in tmpfiles.d and %ghost
=
psad.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/psad/LICENSE
psad-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/psad-2.4.3/psad.h
psad-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/psad-2.4.3/psad_funcs.c
psad-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/psad-2.4.3/kmsgsd.c
Upstream should be informed, the source/header-files can be patched, but there
is no need to.
The LICENSE-file should not be changed.
--
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1382875] Review Request: psad - Port Scan Attack Detector (psad) watches for suspect traffic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382875
Jens Lody changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fed...@jenslody.de
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fed...@jenslody.de
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Jens Lody ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Permissions on files are set properly.
Note: See rpmlint output
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/psad
See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[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.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "BSD (3
clause)", "Unknown or generated". 63 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/jens/reviews/rawhide/1382875-psad/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /etc/logrotate.d(samba-
common, logrotate, ppp, sssd-common)
[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.
[?]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 6 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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]: 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 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 lic
[Bug 1382875] Review Request: psad - Port Scan Attack Detector (psad) watches for suspect traffic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382875 --- Comment #4 from Jens Lody --- As you can see in the fedora-review output, the requirements seem to work. I also tested your foo*-package from #1382865 with fedora-review (mock) for Rawhide and F25 and both seems to be correct. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1382875] Review Request: psad - Port Scan Attack Detector (psad) watches for suspect traffic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382875 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1382865 --- Comment #1 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski --- For some reason, the manually specified Requires: perl(foo) are not getting included, see bug 1382865. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382865 [Bug 1382865] manually specified Requires: perl(foo) are ignored -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
