[Bug 2335269] New: Review Request: python-nampa - Pure-python implementation of IDA Pro's FLIRT technology
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335269
Bug ID: 2335269 Summary: Review Request: python-nampa - Pure-python implementation of IDA Pro's FLIRT technology Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mike@flyn.org QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/python-nampa.spec SRPM URL: https://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/python-nampa-0.1.1-1.fc41.src.rpm Description: Pure-python implementation of IDA Pro's FLIRT technology Fedora Account System Username: mikep
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335269
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged URL| |https://github.com/kenoph/n | |ampa
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8463893 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- 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=2335269
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335269
--- Comment #2 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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. [ ]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License", "Unknown or generated". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/python-nampa/2335269- python-nampa/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.14/site- packages, /usr/lib/python3.14 [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: 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 [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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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]: 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. [x]: 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. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-nampa-0.1.1-1.fc43.noarch.rpm python-nampa-0.1.1-1.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/tmpyaob64it')] checks: 32, packages: 2
python3-nampa.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/nampa/flirt.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-nampa.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.7 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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-nampa.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/nampa/flirt.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-nampa.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 3 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/n/nampa/nampa-0.1.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6d436100026d408f8f29b3ae12584205d382ab646be1073120755eea9ec0cc4c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6d436100026d408f8f29b3ae12584205d382ab646be1073120755eea9ec0cc4c
Requires -------- python3-nampa (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi)
Provides -------- python3-nampa: python-nampa python3-nampa python3.14-nampa python3.14dist(nampa) python3dist(nampa)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2335269 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: C/C++, Haskell, SugarActivity, Perl, Ocaml, fonts, PHP, Java, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments: a) GitHub source has a test: https://github.com/thebabush/nampa/tree/master/tests can this source be packaged instead and the test run? b) For the patch, please link to: https://github.com/thebabush/nampa/pull/16 Maybe ask upstream to make a new release? c) GitHub source also has a license file which should be packaged
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335269
--- Comment #3 from W. Michael Petullo mike@flyn.org --- Spec URL: https://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/python-nampa.spec SRPM URL: https://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/python-nampa-1.0-1.fc42.src.rpm Description: Pure-python implementation of IDA Pro's FLIRT technology Fedora Account System Username: mikep
- Change URL, as old upstream now redirects to new URL. (See also commit 96269bb7.) - Patch to make tests more easily executable (https://github.com/thebabush/nampa/pull/17). - Run provided tests. - Use upstream "future" patch and cite. - Include COPYING.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335269
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2094508 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2094508&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8463893 to 9193269
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335269
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9193269 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- 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=2335269
--- Comment #6 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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: "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/python-nampa/2335269-python- nampa/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.14, /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages [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. [ ]: 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: [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0: https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/n/nampa/nampa-1.0.tar.gz See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/SourceURL/ [-]: 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. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [ ]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %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]: 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-nampa-1.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm python-nampa-1.0-1.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/tmpa02qkm5w')] checks: 32, packages: 2
python3-nampa.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/nampa/flirt.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-nampa.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.4 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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-nampa.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/nampa/flirt.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-nampa.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 3 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Requires -------- python3-nampa (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi)
Provides -------- python3-nampa: python-nampa python3-nampa python3.14-nampa python3.14dist(nampa) python3dist(nampa)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2335269 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Haskell, Java, C/C++, SugarActivity, fonts, PHP, R, Ocaml, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments: a) Please change %pyproject_save_files nampa to %pyproject_save_files -l nampa and remove %license COPYING as the COPYING file is included with metadata $ rpm -qL python3-nampa-1.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/nampa-0.1.1.dist-info/licenses/COPYING /usr/share/licenses/python3-nampa/COPYING b) You may consider adding %doc README.md c) Please remove the shebang from nampa/flirt.py see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_shebangs d) The spec file still has Source: %{pypi_source nampa} Please change to Source: %{url}/archive/%{version}/nampa-%{version}.tar.gz
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335269
--- Comment #7 from W. Michael Petullo mike@flyn.org --- Spec URL: https://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/python-nampa.spec SRPM URL: https://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/python-nampa-1.0-1.fc42.src.rpm Description: Pure-python implementation of IDA Pro's FLIRT technology Fedora Account System Username: mikep
- Fix license definition. - Add README.md. - Use sed to remove shebang from flirt.py. - Update Source field.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335269
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2094543 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2094543&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 9193269 to 9193885
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335269
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9193885 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- 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.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com