[Bug 2359408] New: Review Request: python-apkinspector - apkInspector is a tool to help examine APK files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2359408
Bug ID: 2359408 Summary: Review Request: python-apkinspector - apkInspector is a tool to help examine APK files Product: Fedora Version: rawhide OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: benson_muite@emailplus.org QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
spec: https://fed500.fedoraproject.org/python-apkinspector.spec srpm: https://fed500.fedoraproject.org/python-apkinspector-1.3.3-1.fc41.src.rpm
description: apkInspector is a tool designed to provide detailed insights into the zip structure of APK files, offering the capability to extract content and decode the AndroidManifest.xml file. What sets APKInspector apart is its adherence to the zip specification during APK parsing, eliminating the need for reliance on external libraries. This independence, allows APKInspector to be highly adaptable, effectively emulating Android's installation process for APKs that cannot be parsed using standard libraries. The main goal is to enable users to conduct static analysis on APKs that employ evasion techniques, especially when conventional methods prove ineffective.
fas: fed500
Reproducible: Always
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2359408
Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |farchord@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com --- FYI, the links are bad. I assume the fedoraproject.org part of the url need to be fedorapeople.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2359408
--- Comment #2 from Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com --- Package installs, builds and has no big problems.
Let me know when the urls are fixed and I'll take the review.
Review contents:
This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [ ]: 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: "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Unknown or generated". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/farchord/Documents/python-apkinspector/review-python- apkinspector/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.13, /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: 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 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]: 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: [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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 [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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-apkinspector-1.3.3-1.fc43.noarch.rpm python-apkinspector-1.3.3-1.fc43.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/tmpb7w0mal8')] checks: 32, packages: 2
python-apkinspector.src: W: summary-not-capitalized apkInspector is a tool to help examine APK files python3-apkinspector.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized apkInspector is a tool to help examine APK files python3-apkinspector.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary apkInspector python3-apkinspector.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ 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 checks: 32, packages: 1
python3-apkinspector.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized apkInspector is a tool to help examine APK files python3-apkinspector.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary apkInspector python3-apkinspector.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/a/apkinspector/apkinspector-1... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d6cd71438a047bdedaa89b865b1fdb007e5356ad215c44a9e6a6692874fde461 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d6cd71438a047bdedaa89b865b1fdb007e5356ad215c44a9e6a6692874fde461
Requires -------- python3-apkinspector (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi)
Provides -------- python3-apkinspector: python-apkinspector python3-apkinspector python3.13-apkinspector python3.13dist(apkinspector) python3dist(apkinspector)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n python-apkinspector Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, Java, Ocaml, R, Perl, fonts, Haskell, C/C++, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2359408
--- Comment #3 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Updated. Thanks.
spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-apkinspector.spec srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-apkinspector-1.3.3-1.fc41.src.rpm
[fedora-review-service-build]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2359408
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/erev0s/a | |pkInspector
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8904696 (failed)
Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.
- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2359408
--- Comment #5 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-apkinspector.spec srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-apkinspector-1.3.2-1.fc41~bootstrap.s...
[fedora-review-service-build]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2359408
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2085027 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2085027&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8904696 to 8904953
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2359408
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8904953 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- Documentation size is 3808152 bytes in 53 files. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation
Please know that there can be false-positives.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2359408
Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com --- LGTM!
* Package follows the Fedora packaging rules * Nothing bad found in the source files * License is allowed in Fedora
The packager should consider off-shooting the documentation to an external package, but it's optional. Worth considering nonetheless.
PACKAGE APPROVED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2359408
Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |farchord@gmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2359408
--- Comment #9 from Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com --- (I meant to a subpackage by the way, not to an external package, that's my bad.)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2359408
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-apkinspector
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2359408
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-e84f27d01d (python-apkinspector-1.3.2-4.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-e84f27d01d
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2359408
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-e84f27d01d has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-e84f27d01d` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-e84f27d01d
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2359408
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2025-05-03 01:11:25
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-e84f27d01d (python-apkinspector-1.3.2-4.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com