[Bug 2153687] New: Review Request: fapolicy-analyzer - File access policy analyzer

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2153687

Bug ID: 2153687
           Summary: Review Request: fapolicy-analyzer - File access policy
                    analyzer
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
          Hardware: All
                OS: Linux
            Status: NEW
         Component: Package Review
          Severity: medium
          Assignee: [e-mail]
          Reporter: [e-mail]
        QA Contact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail]
  Target Milestone: ---
    Classification: Fedora

Spec URL:
https://github.com/ctc-oss/fapolicy-analyzer/releases/download/v0.6.2/fapoli...
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/ctc-oss/fapolicy-analyzer/releases/download/v0.6.2/fapoli...
Description: File Access Policy Analyzer is a tool to assist with the
configuration and management of fapolicyd.
Fedora Account System Username: jwass3

[Bug 2153687] Review Request: fapolicy-analyzer - File access policy analyzer

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2153687

Major Hayden 🤠  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail],
                   |                            |[e-mail]
           Doc Type|---                         |If docs needed, set a value
              Flags|                            |needinfo?([e-mail]
                   |                            |)

--- Comment #1 from Major Hayden 🤠  ---
@[e-mail] -- I'll sponsor you as a packager.

@[e-mail] -- @[e-mail] said you were going to review this
one?

[Bug 2153687] Review Request: fapolicy-analyzer - File access policy analyzer

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2153687

Radovan Sroka  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|needinfo?([e-mail] |fedora-review?
                   |)                           |

--- Comment #2 from Radovan Sroka  ---
(In reply to Major Hayden 🤠 from comment #1)
> @[e-mail] -- I'll sponsor you as a packager.
>
> @[e-mail] -- @[e-mail] said you were going to review this
> one?

I'll take it.

[Bug 2153687] Review Request: fapolicy-analyzer - File access policy analyzer

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2153687

--- Comment #3 from jw3  ---
> @[e-mail] -- I'll sponsor you as a packager.

Thank you!
> I'll take it.

Thanks, I'll watch for feedback.

[Bug 2153687] Review Request: fapolicy-analyzer - File access policy analyzer

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2153687

--- Comment #4 from Radovan Sroka  ---
Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

Issues:
=======
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
  BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
  Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
  in the spec URL.
  Note: Check did not completechecksum differs and there are problems
  running diff. Please verify manually.
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/

===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0",
     "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License Apache License (v2.0) or
     MIT license", "*No copyright* The Unlicense", "*No copyright* MIT
     License", "MIT License Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* MIT
     License BSD 3-Clause License Creative Commons Attribution 3.0", "*No
     copyright* Apache License (v2.0) or MIT license", "BSD 3-Clause
     License", "Apache License (v2.0) or MIT license", "Apache License
     2.0", "*No copyright* CNRI Python License Apache License 2.0", "*No
     copyright* Boost Software License 1.0", "MIT License Apache License
     (v2.0) or MIT license", "SSLeay", "ISC License", "*No copyright*
     [generated file]", "OpenSSL License [generated file]", "Boost Software
     License 1.0 Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* GNU General Public
     License", "*No copyright* CNRI Python License", "ISC License
     [generated file]", "OpenSSL License", "Open LDAP Public License v2.8".
     2417 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/rsroka/2153687-fapolicy-analyzer/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[?]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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.
[-]: 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]: 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:
[-]: 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
     Note: Please, use macros instead of python3 interpreter
[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.
[!]: 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[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:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Bad spec filename: /home/rsroka/2153687-fapolicy-analyzer/srpm-
     unpacked/fapolicy-analyzer.spec
     See: (this test has no URL)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: fapolicy-analyzer-0.6.2-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          fapolicy-analyzer-debuginfo-0.6.2-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          fapolicy-analyzer-debugsource-0.6.2-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          fapolicy-analyzer-0.6.2-1.fc38.src.rpm
===========================================================================================================================
rpmlint session starts
===========================================================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmpo3v0v4t3')]
checks: 31, packages: 4

fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fapolicy-analyzer
fapolicy-analyzer.spec: W: invalid-url Source1: vendor-rs.tar.gz
fapolicy-analyzer.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: fapolicy-analyzer.tar.gz
fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.6.1-1
['0.6.2-1.fc38', '0.6.2-1']
fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: W: files-duplicate
/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/util/__init__.py
/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/css/__init__.py:/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/glade/__init__.py:/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/resources/__init__.py
fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: W: files-duplicate
/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/resources/sourceview/styles/__init__.py
/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/resources/sourceview/language-specs/__init__.py
fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/locale/es/LC_MESSAGES/fapolicy_analyzer.mo
fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency dbus-libs
============================================================================================
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 7 warnings, 1 badness; has taken
1.0 s
============================================================================================

Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: fapolicy-analyzer-debuginfo-0.6.2-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
===========================================================================================================================
rpmlint session starts
===========================================================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmphw60q_3f')]
checks: 31, packages: 1

============================================================================================
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken
0.2 s
============================================================================================

Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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: 31, packages: 3

fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fapolicy-analyzer
fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.6.1-1
['0.6.2-1.fc38', '0.6.2-1']
fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: W: files-duplicate
/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/util/__init__.py
/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/css/__init__.py:/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/glade/__init__.py:/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/resources/__init__.py
fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: W: files-duplicate
/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/resources/sourceview/styles/__init__.py
/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/resources/sourceview/language-specs/__init__.py
fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/locale/es/LC_MESSAGES/fapolicy_analyzer.mo
fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency dbus-libs
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings, 1 badness; has taken
0.6 s

Unversioned so-files
--------------------
fapolicy-analyzer:
/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/rust.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/ctc-oss/fapolicy-analyzer/releases/download/v0.6.2/vendor...
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : ERROR
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
a506fac238fa6b8f968a16256e0666893a1a00a05300ff12f846937c9a015845
https://github.com/ctc-oss/fapolicy-analyzer/releases/download/v0.6.2/fapoli...
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
2fb29cd10e7e94f6390b479f8624e8836734dec0071b321a89f9fcbb28e2508c
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
a67dc5417b5f646f33a615aa24e340561df59221319bfc66f80f7811449ba03e

Requires
--------
fapolicy-analyzer (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/bash
    dbus-libs
    gtk3
    gtksourceview3
    ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libdbus-1.so.3()(64bit)
    libdbus-1.so.3(LIBDBUS_1_3)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    python(abi)
    python3
    python3-configargparse
    python3-events
    python3-gobject
    python3-importlib-metadata
    python3-more-itertools
    python3-rx
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

fapolicy-analyzer-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

fapolicy-analyzer-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

Provides
--------
fapolicy-analyzer:
    fapolicy-analyzer
    fapolicy-analyzer(x86-64)
    python3.11dist(fapolicy-analyzer)
    python3dist(fapolicy-analyzer)

fapolicy-analyzer-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    fapolicy-analyzer-debuginfo
    fapolicy-analyzer-debuginfo(x86-64)

fapolicy-analyzer-debugsource:
    fapolicy-analyzer-debugsource
    fapolicy-analyzer-debugsource(x86-64)

Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -b 2153687
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++, Python
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, R, Perl, Ocaml, PHP, Haskell, fonts, Java
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
rsroka@Alex-New-Instance ~/2153687-fapolicy-analyzer>
rsroka@Alex-New-Instance ~/2153687-fapolicy-analyzer>
rsroka@Alex-New-Instance ~/2153687-fapolicy-analyzer>
rsroka@Alex-New-Instance ~/2153687-fapolicy-analyzer> edit review.txt
rsroka@Alex-New-Instance ~/2153687-fapolicy-analyzer> cat review.txt

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

===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[-]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[-]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0",
     "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License Apache License (v2.0) or
     MIT license", "*No copyright* The Unlicense", "*No copyright* MIT
     License", "MIT License Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* MIT
     License BSD 3-Clause License Creative Commons Attribution 3.0", "*No
     copyright* Apache License (v2.0) or MIT license", "BSD 3-Clause
     License", "Apache License (v2.0) or MIT license", "Apache License
     2.0", "*No copyright* CNRI Python License Apache License 2.0", "*No
     copyright* Boost Software License 1.0", "MIT License Apache License
     (v2.0) or MIT license", "SSLeay", "ISC License", "*No copyright*
     [generated file]", "OpenSSL License [generated file]", "Boost Software
     License 1.0 Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* GNU General Public
     License", "*No copyright* CNRI Python License", "ISC License
     [generated file]", "OpenSSL License", "Open LDAP Public License v2.8".
     2417 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/rsroka/2153687-fapolicy-analyzer/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.

What should we do about vendor?

[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[?]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.

I think this is also relevant ^.

[-]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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.
[-]: 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]: 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:
[-]: 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

Please, use macros instead of python3 interpreter.

[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
[-]: 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.
[!]: 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.
[x]: %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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[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:
[-]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Bad spec filename: /home/rsroka/2153687-fapolicy-analyzer/srpm-
     unpacked/fapolicy-analyzer.spec
     See: (this test has no URL)
[!]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).

Please check and fix rpmlint errors and warnings bellow.

[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.

Please check and fix rpmlint errors and warnings bellow.

[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: fapolicy-analyzer-0.6.2-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          fapolicy-analyzer-debuginfo-0.6.2-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          fapolicy-analyzer-debugsource-0.6.2-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          fapolicy-analyzer-0.6.2-1.fc38.src.rpm
===========================================================================================================================
rpmlint session starts
===========================================================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmpo3v0v4t3')]
checks: 31, packages: 4

fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fapolicy-analyzer
fapolicy-analyzer.spec: W: invalid-url Source1: vendor-rs.tar.gz
fapolicy-analyzer.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: fapolicy-analyzer.tar.gz
fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.6.1-1
['0.6.2-1.fc38', '0.6.2-1']
fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: W: files-duplicate
/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/util/__init__.py
/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/css/__init__.py:/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/glade/__init__.py:/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/resources/__init__.py
fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: W: files-duplicate
/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/resources/sourceview/styles/__init__.py
/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/resources/sourceview/language-specs/__init__.py
fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/locale/es/LC_MESSAGES/fapolicy_analyzer.mo
fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency dbus-libs
============================================================================================
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 7 warnings, 1 badness; has taken
1.0 s
============================================================================================

Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: fapolicy-analyzer-debuginfo-0.6.2-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
===========================================================================================================================
rpmlint session starts
===========================================================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmphw60q_3f')]
checks: 31, packages: 1

============================================================================================
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken
0.2 s
============================================================================================

Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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: 31, packages: 3

fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fapolicy-analyzer
fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.6.1-1
['0.6.2-1.fc38', '0.6.2-1']
fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: W: files-duplicate
/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/util/__init__.py
/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/css/__init__.py:/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/glade/__init__.py:/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/resources/__init__.py
fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: W: files-duplicate
/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/resources/sourceview/styles/__init__.py
/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/resources/sourceview/language-specs/__init__.py
fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/locale/es/LC_MESSAGES/fapolicy_analyzer.mo
fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency dbus-libs
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings, 1 badness; has taken
0.6 s

Unversioned so-files
--------------------
fapolicy-analyzer:
/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/rust.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/ctc-oss/fapolicy-analyzer/releases/download/v0.6.2/vendor...
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : ERROR
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
a506fac238fa6b8f968a16256e0666893a1a00a05300ff12f846937c9a015845
https://github.com/ctc-oss/fapolicy-analyzer/releases/download/v0.6.2/fapoli...
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
2fb29cd10e7e94f6390b479f8624e8836734dec0071b321a89f9fcbb28e2508c
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
a67dc5417b5f646f33a615aa24e340561df59221319bfc66f80f7811449ba03e

Requires
--------
fapolicy-analyzer (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/bash
    dbus-libs
    gtk3
    gtksourceview3
    ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libdbus-1.so.3()(64bit)
    libdbus-1.so.3(LIBDBUS_1_3)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    python(abi)
    python3
    python3-configargparse
    python3-events
    python3-gobject
    python3-importlib-metadata
    python3-more-itertools
    python3-rx
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

fapolicy-analyzer-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

fapolicy-analyzer-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

Provides
--------
fapolicy-analyzer:
    fapolicy-analyzer
    fapolicy-analyzer(x86-64)
    python3.11dist(fapolicy-analyzer)
    python3dist(fapolicy-analyzer)

fapolicy-analyzer-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    fapolicy-analyzer-debuginfo
    fapolicy-analyzer-debuginfo(x86-64)

fapolicy-analyzer-debugsource:
    fapolicy-analyzer-debugsource
    fapolicy-analyzer-debugsource(x86-64)

Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -b 2153687
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++, Python
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, R, Perl, Ocaml, PHP, Haskell, fonts, Java
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

So I did run review tool and there are some things that need to be fixed look
for [!] and [?]. Unversioned .so file should be OK.
I would also use "tar -xzf" instead of "tar xzf" and "%autosetup -p0" instead
of "%autosetup -p1" in .spec but it's just my personal recomendation.

When you are done just update links from the description or post a new comment
with new links to the specfile and srpm.

[Bug 2153687] Review Request: fapolicy-analyzer - File access policy analyzer

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2153687

--- Comment #5 from Radovan Sroka  ---
This is relevant comment. Previous was a mess so I did hide it and posted
again.

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[-]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[-]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0",
     "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License Apache License (v2.0) or
     MIT license", "*No copyright* The Unlicense", "*No copyright* MIT
     License", "MIT License Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* MIT
     License BSD 3-Clause License Creative Commons Attribution 3.0", "*No
     copyright* Apache License (v2.0) or MIT license", "BSD 3-Clause
     License", "Apache License (v2.0) or MIT license", "Apache License
     2.0", "*No copyright* CNRI Python License Apache License 2.0", "*No
     copyright* Boost Software License 1.0", "MIT License Apache License
     (v2.0) or MIT license", "SSLeay", "ISC License", "*No copyright*
     [generated file]", "OpenSSL License [generated file]", "Boost Software
     License 1.0 Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* GNU General Public
     License", "*No copyright* CNRI Python License", "ISC License
     [generated file]", "OpenSSL License", "Open LDAP Public License v2.8".
     2417 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/rsroka/2153687-fapolicy-analyzer/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.

What should we do about vendor?

[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[?]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.

I think this is also relevant ^.

[-]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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.
[-]: 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]: 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:
[-]: 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

Please, use macros instead of python3 interpreter.

[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
[-]: 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.
[!]: 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.
[x]: %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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[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:
[-]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Bad spec filename: /home/rsroka/2153687-fapolicy-analyzer/srpm-
     unpacked/fapolicy-analyzer.spec
     See: (this test has no URL)
[!]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).

Please check and fix rpmlint errors and warnings bellow.

[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.

Please check and fix rpmlint errors and warnings bellow.

[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: fapolicy-analyzer-0.6.2-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          fapolicy-analyzer-debuginfo-0.6.2-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          fapolicy-analyzer-debugsource-0.6.2-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          fapolicy-analyzer-0.6.2-1.fc38.src.rpm
===========================================================================================================================
rpmlint session starts
===========================================================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmpo3v0v4t3')]
checks: 31, packages: 4

fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fapolicy-analyzer
fapolicy-analyzer.spec: W: invalid-url Source1: vendor-rs.tar.gz
fapolicy-analyzer.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: fapolicy-analyzer.tar.gz
fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.6.1-1
['0.6.2-1.fc38', '0.6.2-1']
fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: W: files-duplicate
/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/util/__init__.py
/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/css/__init__.py:/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/glade/__init__.py:/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/resources/__init__.py
fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: W: files-duplicate
/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/resources/sourceview/styles/__init__.py
/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/resources/sourceview/language-specs/__init__.py
fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/locale/es/LC_MESSAGES/fapolicy_analyzer.mo
fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency dbus-libs
============================================================================================
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 7 warnings, 1 badness; has taken
1.0 s
============================================================================================

Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: fapolicy-analyzer-debuginfo-0.6.2-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
===========================================================================================================================
rpmlint session starts
===========================================================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmphw60q_3f')]
checks: 31, packages: 1

============================================================================================
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken
0.2 s
============================================================================================

Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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: 31, packages: 3

fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fapolicy-analyzer
fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.6.1-1
['0.6.2-1.fc38', '0.6.2-1']
fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: W: files-duplicate
/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/util/__init__.py
/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/css/__init__.py:/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/glade/__init__.py:/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/resources/__init__.py
fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: W: files-duplicate
/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/resources/sourceview/styles/__init__.py
/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/resources/sourceview/language-specs/__init__.py
fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/locale/es/LC_MESSAGES/fapolicy_analyzer.mo
fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency dbus-libs
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings, 1 badness; has taken
0.6 s

Unversioned so-files
--------------------
fapolicy-analyzer:
/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/rust.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/ctc-oss/fapolicy-analyzer/releases/download/v0.6.2/vendor...
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : ERROR
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
a506fac238fa6b8f968a16256e0666893a1a00a05300ff12f846937c9a015845
https://github.com/ctc-oss/fapolicy-analyzer/releases/download/v0.6.2/fapoli...
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
2fb29cd10e7e94f6390b479f8624e8836734dec0071b321a89f9fcbb28e2508c
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
a67dc5417b5f646f33a615aa24e340561df59221319bfc66f80f7811449ba03e

Requires
--------
fapolicy-analyzer (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/bash
    dbus-libs
    gtk3
    gtksourceview3
    ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libdbus-1.so.3()(64bit)
    libdbus-1.so.3(LIBDBUS_1_3)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    python(abi)
    python3
    python3-configargparse
    python3-events
    python3-gobject
    python3-importlib-metadata
    python3-more-itertools
    python3-rx
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

fapolicy-analyzer-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

fapolicy-analyzer-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

Provides
--------
fapolicy-analyzer:
    fapolicy-analyzer
    fapolicy-analyzer(x86-64)
    python3.11dist(fapolicy-analyzer)
    python3dist(fapolicy-analyzer)

fapolicy-analyzer-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    fapolicy-analyzer-debuginfo
    fapolicy-analyzer-debuginfo(x86-64)

fapolicy-analyzer-debugsource:
    fapolicy-analyzer-debugsource
    fapolicy-analyzer-debugsource(x86-64)

Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -b 2153687
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++, Python
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, R, Perl, Ocaml, PHP, Haskell, fonts, Java
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

So I did run review tool and there are some things that need to be fixed look
for [!] and [?]. Unversioned .so file should be OK.
I would also use "tar -xzf" instead of "tar xzf" and "%autosetup -p0" instead
of "%autosetup -p1" in .spec but it's just my personal recomendation.

When you are done just update links from the description or post a new comment
with new links to the specfile and srpm.

[Bug 2153687] Review Request: fapolicy-analyzer - File access policy analyzer

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2153687

--- Comment #6 from John Wass  ---
Spec URL:
https://github.com/ctc-oss/fapolicy-analyzer/releases/download/v0.6.5/fapoli...
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/ctc-oss/fapolicy-analyzer/releases/download/v0.6.5/fapoli...

tl;dr; Addressed all findings with exception of the file-not-in-%lang lint,
working on that now. Wanted to get another iteration on everything else in the
meantime.
> [?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
>
> What should we do about vendor?

Reviewed all dependencies, bumped some versions and cut our tools crate out of
the build.  Surprisingly, we are down to two missing crates.  I will submit a
couple bz requests and see if they can be added.

(Note: our vendor tarball contains more entries, but many are just stubs to
satisfy Cargo metadata)
> [?]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
>
> I think this is also relevant ^.

Added a desktop file.
> [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
>
> Please, use macros instead of python3 interpreter.

Done
> I would also use "tar -xzf" instead of "tar xzf"

Done
> and "%autosetup -p0" instead of "%autosetup -p1" in .spec

My original spec used "-p0", so I wasnt sure if you mistyped or misread or if I
am missing it  :)

Unchanged, will update after getting clarification.
> but it's just my personal recomendation.

Appreciate the suggestions.

[Bug 2153687] Review Request: fapolicy-analyzer - File access policy analyzer

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2153687

--- Comment #7 from Jakub Kadlčík  ---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5208599
(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

[Bug 2153687] Review Request: fapolicy-analyzer - File access policy analyzer

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2153687

--- Comment #8 from John Wass  ---
Spec URL:
https://github.com/ctc-oss/fapolicy-analyzer/releases/download/v0.6.6/fapoli...
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/ctc-oss/fapolicy-analyzer/releases/download/v0.6.6/fapoli...

This should clean up all previous lints and comments.

[Bug 2153687] Review Request: fapolicy-analyzer - File access policy analyzer

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2153687

--- Comment #9 from Jakub Kadlčík  ---
Created attachment 1937281
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1937281&action=edit
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5208599 to 5216270

[Bug 2153687] Review Request: fapolicy-analyzer - File access policy analyzer

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2153687

--- Comment #10 from Jakub Kadlčík  ---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5216270
(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

[Bug 2153687] Review Request: fapolicy-analyzer - File access policy analyzer

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2153687

--- Comment #11 from John Wass  ---
> [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
>     Note: Bad spec filename: /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/fapolicy-
>     analyzer/srpm-unpacked/fapolicy-analyzer.spec
>     See: (this test has no URL)

Double checked the v0.6.6 links, looks like the linked spec matches the
srpm/spec.

False positive or something else?

[Bug 2153687] Review Request: fapolicy-analyzer - File access policy analyzer

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2153687

Radovan Sroka  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |Triaged

--- Comment #12 from Radovan Sroka  ---
Hello,
> > and "%autosetup -p0" instead of "%autosetup -p1" in .spec
> My original spec used "-p0", so I wasnt sure if you mistyped or misread or if I am missing it  :)

I mean "%autosetup -p1" instead of "%autosetup -p0" in .spec, sorry my fault.

(In reply to John Wass from comment #11)
> > [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
> >     Note: Bad spec filename: /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/fapolicy-
> >     analyzer/srpm-unpacked/fapolicy-analyzer.spec
> >     See: (this test has no URL)
>
> Double checked the v0.6.6 links, looks like the linked spec matches the
> srpm/spec.
>
> False positive or something else?

I'll take a look.

[Bug 2153687] Review Request: fapolicy-analyzer - File access policy analyzer

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2153687

--- Comment #13 from Radovan Sroka  ---
I downloaded from upstream and unpacked from srpm and I can really see the
difference:

[rsroka@xyz ~]$ sha256sum rpmbuild/SOURCES/fapolicy-analyzer.tar.gz
a1ce36461d6fcd67a1b579db3675fcea1ab9ff04c2eca84137ba9a227760da1e 
rpmbuild/SOURCES/fapolicy-analyzer.tar.gz
[rsroka@xyz ~]$ sha256sum /tmp/fapolicy-analyzer.tar.gz
15c2eebcb7094ff55b1d07a3f975223c1544b333ee3e818015f44f7060bfd1ac 
/tmp/fapolicy-analyzer.tar.gz
[rsroka@xyz ~]$

[Bug 2153687] Review Request: fapolicy-analyzer - File access policy analyzer

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2153687

--- Comment #14 from John Wass  ---
Ah ok, I thought it was the spec text in question.  Will resolve.

[Bug 2153687] Review Request: fapolicy-analyzer - File access policy analyzer

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2153687

--- Comment #15 from John Wass  ---
Spec URL:
https://github.com/ctc-oss/fapolicy-analyzer/releases/download/v0.6.7/fapoli...
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/ctc-oss/fapolicy-analyzer/releases/download/v0.6.7/fapoli...
> [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Should be resolved now ...

[Bug 2153687] Review Request: fapolicy-analyzer - File access policy analyzer

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2153687

--- Comment #16 from Jakub Kadlčík  ---
Created attachment 1937493
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1937493&action=edit
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5216270 to 5218325

[Bug 2153687] Review Request: fapolicy-analyzer - File access policy analyzer

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2153687

--- Comment #17 from Jakub Kadlčík  ---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5218325
(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

[Bug 2153687] Review Request: fapolicy-analyzer - File access policy analyzer

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2153687

--- Comment #18 from Radovan Sroka  ---
Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.

Verified.

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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
     upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General
     Public License v3.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public
     License, Version 3", "Mozilla Public License 2.0", "MIT License". 72
     files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/rsroka/2153687-fapolicy-analyzer/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
     desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
     Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?)
[-]: 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.
[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]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files

===== 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.
[-]: 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.
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[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 debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: fapolicy-analyzer-0.6.7-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          fapolicy-analyzer-debuginfo-0.6.7-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          fapolicy-analyzer-debugsource-0.6.7-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          fapolicy-analyzer-0.6.7-1.fc38.src.rpm
==================================================================================
rpmlint session starts
==================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmp9ikv14nl')]
checks: 31, packages: 4

fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.6.6-1
['0.6.7-1.fc38', '0.6.7-1']
=================================================== 4 packages and 0 specfiles
checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.9 s
===================================================

Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: fapolicy-analyzer-debuginfo-0.6.7-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
==================================================================================
rpmlint session starts
==================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmp7zlbz8u2')]
checks: 31, packages: 1

=================================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles
checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s
===================================================

Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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: 31, packages: 3

fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.6.6-1
['0.6.7-1.fc38', '0.6.7-1']
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken
0.7 s

Unversioned so-files
--------------------
fapolicy-analyzer:
/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/rust.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/ctc-oss/fapolicy-analyzer/releases/download/v0.6.7/fapoli...
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
a7418589173bed4b6304aad27beb631970bb9c80175e2708ed2079fae1f1fa05
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
a7418589173bed4b6304aad27beb631970bb9c80175e2708ed2079fae1f1fa05

Requires
--------
fapolicy-analyzer (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/bash
    gnome-icon-theme
    gtk3
    gtksourceview3
    ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libdbus-1.so.3()(64bit)
    libdbus-1.so.3(LIBDBUS_1_3)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit)
    liblmdb.so.0.0.0()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    python(abi)
    python3
    python3-configargparse
    python3-events
    python3-gobject
    python3-importlib-metadata
    python3-more-itertools
    python3-rx
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

fapolicy-analyzer-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

fapolicy-analyzer-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

Provides
--------
fapolicy-analyzer:
    application()
    application(fapolicy-analyzer.desktop)
    fapolicy-analyzer
    fapolicy-analyzer(x86-64)
    python3.11dist(fapolicy-analyzer)
    python3dist(fapolicy-analyzer)

fapolicy-analyzer-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    fapolicy-analyzer-debuginfo
    fapolicy-analyzer-debuginfo(x86-64)

fapolicy-analyzer-debugsource:
    fapolicy-analyzer-debugsource
    fapolicy-analyzer-debugsource(x86-64)

Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2153687
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Perl, R, SugarActivity, C/C++, fonts, Java, Ocaml, PHP,
Haskell
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

There is one new rpmlint warning there. Easy to fix I guess.

I think that we are almost at the end of the review but there is still one
thing missing.

"[?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception"

Apart from that we are OK.

[Bug 2153687] Review Request: fapolicy-analyzer - File access policy analyzer

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2153687

--- Comment #19 from John Wass  ---
Yep, I will fix that version mismatch.

What bundled library is it referring to? (the rust vendoring was eliminated)

[Bug 2153687] Review Request: fapolicy-analyzer - File access policy analyzer

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2153687

--- Comment #20 from Radovan Sroka  ---
(In reply to John Wass from comment #19)
> Yep, I will fix that version mismatch.
>
> What bundled library is it referring to? (the rust vendoring was eliminated)

I double checked it and you are right I did not notice. In this case I consider
it to be done.

I will give you the fedora-review flag + when the warning will be fixed.

[Bug 2153687] Review Request: fapolicy-analyzer - File access policy analyzer

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2153687

--- Comment #21 from John Wass  ---
Spec URL:
https://github.com/ctc-oss/fapolicy-analyzer/releases/download/v0.6.8/fapoli...
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/ctc-oss/fapolicy-analyzer/releases/download/v0.6.8/fapoli...

Fixes the version mismatch in the changelog.

[Bug 2153687] Review Request: fapolicy-analyzer - File access policy analyzer

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2153687

--- Comment #22 from Jakub Kadlčík  ---
Created attachment 1937638
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1937638&action=edit
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5218325 to 5224754

[Bug 2153687] Review Request: fapolicy-analyzer - File access policy analyzer

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2153687

--- Comment #23 from Jakub Kadlčík  ---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5224754
(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

[Bug 2153687] Review Request: fapolicy-analyzer - File access policy analyzer

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2153687

Radovan Sroka  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #24 from Radovan Sroka  ---
Checked again and everything looks good.

Setting fedora-review flag to +.

[Bug 2153687] Review Request: fapolicy-analyzer - File access policy analyzer

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2153687

--- Comment #25 from John Wass  ---
Excellent, thanks!

[Bug 2153687] Review Request: fapolicy-analyzer - File access policy analyzer

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2153687

Steve Grubb  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Assignee|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]

[Bug 2153687] Review Request: fapolicy-analyzer - File access policy analyzer

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2153687

--- Comment #26 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions  ---
The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fapolicy-analyzer