[Bug 1704958] New: Review Request: wafw00f - A tool to identifies and fingerprints Web Application Firewall (WAF)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1704958
Bug ID: 1704958 Summary: Review Request: wafw00f - A tool to identifies and fingerprints Web Application Firewall (WAF) Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mail@fabian-affolter.ch QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/wafw00f.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/wafw00f-0.9.6-1.fc30.src.rpm
Project URL: https://github.com/sandrogauci/wafw00f
Description: WAFW00F identifies and fingerprints Web Application Firewall (WAF) products.
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=34552695
rpmlint output: $ rpmlint wafw00f-0.9.6-1.fc30.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint wafw00f-0.9.6-1.fc30.noarch.rpm wafw00f.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wafw00f 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Fedora Account System Username: fab
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1704958
Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |563471 (FE-SECLAB)
--- Comment #1 from Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch --- *** Bug 1394980 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=563471 [Bug 563471] Tracker: Review Requests for Fedora Security Lab related packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1704958
Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alias| |wafw00f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1704958
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - v1.0.0 has been published 17 hours ago: https://github.com/EnableSecurity/wafw00f/releases
- Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files Note: Package contains %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files See: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/782
- Package doesn't install:
DEBUG util.py:583: BUILDSTDERR: Error: DEBUG util.py:583: BUILDSTDERR: Problem: conflicting requests DEBUG util.py:583: BUILDSTDERR: - nothing provides python3.7dist(beautifulsoup4) = 4.6.0 needed by wafw00f-0.9.6-1.fc31.noarch DEBUG util.py:583: BUILDSTDERR: - nothing provides python3.7dist(pluginbase) = 0.7 needed by wafw00f-0.9.6-1.fc31.noarch
Relay these dependencies.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ - Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files Note: Package contains %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files See: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/782
===== 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", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 68 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/wafw00f/review-wafw00f/licensecheck.txt [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. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 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]: 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 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 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: [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]: 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]: 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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: wafw00f-0.9.6-1.fc31.noarch.rpm wafw00f-0.9.6-1.fc31.src.rpm wafw00f.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wafw00f 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1704958
--- Comment #3 from Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch --- I opened a PR against the upstream project to get some things fixed.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1704958
--- Comment #4 from Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch --- * Sun May 05 2019 Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch - 1.0.0-1 - Fix files section and add tests - Update to latest upstream release 1.0.0
Updated files: Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/wafw00f.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/wafw00f-1.0.0-1.fc30.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1704958
Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(zebob.m@gmail.com | |)
--- Comment #5 from Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch --- Is there something missing?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1704958
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(zebob.m@gmail.com | |) |
--- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- oved.kaye app, pao +o
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1704958
--- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/wafw00f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1704958
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2019-725ba1dca1 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-725ba1dca1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1704958
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2019-10-27 01:29:29
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- wafw00f-1.0.0-3.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com