https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1429356
Bug ID: 1429356 Summary: Review Request: sepolicy_analysis - SELinux policy analysis tool Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: vmojzis@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: ttps://pagure.io/sepolicy_analysis/raw/master/f/sepolicy_analysis.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/sepolicy_analysis/raw/master/f/sepolicy_analysis-0.1-1.fc2...
Description: Tool designed to help increase the quality of SELinux policy by identifying possibly dangerous permission pathways, simplifying regression testing and providing policy visualization. Fedora Account System Username: vmojzis@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1429356
Antonio Trande anto.trande@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |anto.trande@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Antonio Trande anto.trande@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
- Many files are released under license GPLv3+. Result license for the package can be GPLv3+.
- Upstream provides egg-info files. They should be erased and rebuilt from source. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Eggs#Upstream_Egg_Packages
- Check source checksums.
===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/sepolicy_analysis/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.6/site- packages, /usr/lib/python3.6 [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: No rpmlint messages. [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 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]: %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 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]: 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. [!]: 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). [ ]: 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]: 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: No rpmlint messages.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: sepolicy_analysis-0.1-1.fc26.noarch.rpm sepolicy_analysis-0.1-1.fc26.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Requires -------- sepolicy_analysis (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash /usr/bin/python3 config(sepolicy_analysis) python(abi) setools-python3
Provides -------- sepolicy_analysis: config(sepolicy_analysis) python3.6dist(sepolicy-analysis) python3dist(sepolicy-analysis) sepolicy_analysis
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/vmojzis/sepolicy_analysis/releases/download/0.1/sepolicy_... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5571b891196bb43d8e812df6ea3121adaa793d28a84f2beadb360fb03cfb1e5a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7e0193b8679fb7f5dfe5d8a113ef333104e4a2bc1b87c3cb059fc0535b64b45c However, diff -r shows no differences
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -rn sepolicy_analysis-0.1-1.fc25.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1429356
--- Comment #2 from Vit Mojzis vmojzis@redhat.com --- Thank you for the review.
Only configuration and auto-generated files remain without licence header after removing the egg-info files. The checksums should now match.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1429356
--- Comment #3 from Antonio Trande anto.trande@gmail.com --- Link to the SPEC file is wrong; please, re-post it.(In reply to Vit Mojzis from comment #0)
Spec URL: ttps://pagure.io/sepolicy_analysis/raw/master/f/sepolicy_analysis.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/sepolicy_analysis/raw/master/f/sepolicy_analysis-0.1-1. fc25.src.rpm
Description: Tool designed to help increase the quality of SELinux policy by identifying possibly dangerous permission pathways, simplifying regression testing and providing policy visualization. Fedora Account System Username: vmojzis@redhat.com
Link to the SPEC file is wrong; please, re-post it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1429356
--- Comment #4 from Vit Mojzis vmojzis@redhat.com --- Yes, sorry... an "h" at the beginning was missing https://pagure.io/sepolicy_analysis/raw/master/f/sepolicy_analysis.spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1429356
Antonio Trande anto.trande@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Antonio Trande anto.trande@gmail.com --- Package approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1429356
--- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/sepolicy_analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1429356
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- sepolicy_analysis-0.1-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-6d0480de6f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1429356
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- sepolicy_analysis-0.1-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 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-2017-6d0480de6f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1429356
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1429356
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2017-05-04 09:29:25
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- sepolicy_analysis-0.1-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com