[Bug 1202604] Review Request: python-sscg - Self-signed Certificate Generator
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Mar 24 15:26:13 UTC 2015
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202604
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek at in.waw.pl> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|needinfo?(zbyszek at in.waw.pl |
|) |
--- Comment #16 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek at in.waw.pl> ---
Issues:
- missing ownership of %{python3_sitelib}/%{srcname}/ and
%{python2_sitelib}/%{srcname}/
- 2to3 is still used (specified in setup.py), which is not necessary
- The paragraph starting from "# Set any script hashbangs to the appropriate
python version" is not necessary, I think. setup.py will set the line by
itself.
- It seems that some imports are missing:
$ sscg --package foo --cert-file /tmp/file1 --cert-key-file /tmp/file2
--country pl --state '' --locality None --organization None
--organizational-unit www
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/bin/sscg", line 9, in <module>
load_entry_point('sscg==0.3.0', 'console_scripts', 'sscg')()
File "/usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/sscg/main.py", line 126, in main
(ca_cert, ca_key) = create_temp_ca(options)
File "/usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/sscg/authority.py", line 20, in
create_temp_ca
print (_("{host} is not a valid FQDN").format(
NameError: name '_' is not defined
- $ sscg
...
sscg: error: the following arguments are required: --package, --cert-file,
--cert-key-file, --country, --state, --locality, --organization,
--organizational-unit
Just a suggestion: maybe some of those could be made optional... E.g. --state
is a US-only thing, and some of the others could default to empty too.
===== 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.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"Unknown or generated". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /var/tmp/1202604-sscg/licensecheck.txt
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/sscg
Please add to %files.
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.4/site-
packages/sscg
[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]: 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]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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 0 bytes in 0 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]: 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]: 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[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: sscg-0.3.0-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
sscg-0.3.0-1.fc23.src.rpm
sscg.noarch: W: no-documentation
sscg.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sscg
sscg.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
https://github.com/sgallagher/sscg/releases/download/sscg-0.3.0/sscg-0.3.0.tar.gz
HTTP Error 403: Forbidden
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Requires
--------
sscg (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/python3
python(abi) = 3.4
python3-pyOpenSSL
python3-pyasn1
Provides
--------
sscg:
sscg
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/sgallagher/sscg/releases/download/sscg-0.3.0/sscg-0.3.0.tar.gz
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
b2179af37b631d4ebd518b6cbd9e957548ee73697924454e0903d3e4020e9333
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
b2179af37b631d4ebd518b6cbd9e957548ee73697924454e0903d3e4020e9333
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-i386 -b 1202604
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R,
PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
--
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
More information about the package-review
mailing list