Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.

Bug 1704958 (wafw00f)

Summary: Review Request: wafw00f - A tool to identifies and fingerprints Web Application Firewall (WAF)
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Fabian Affolter <mail>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <zebob.m>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: package-review, zebob.m
Target Milestone: ---Flags: zebob.m: fedora-review+
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2019-10-27 01:29:29 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 563471    

Description Fabian Affolter 2019-04-30 21:45:52 UTC
Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/wafw00f.spec
SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/wafw00f-0.9.6-1.fc30.src.rpm

Project URL: https://github.com/sandrogauci/wafw00f

Description: 
WAFW00F identifies and fingerprints Web Application Firewall (WAF) products.

Koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=34552695

rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint wafw00f-0.9.6-1.fc30.src.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint wafw00f-0.9.6-1.fc30.noarch.rpm
wafw00f.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wafw00f
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Fedora Account System Username: fab

Comment 1 Fabian Affolter 2019-04-30 22:01:38 UTC
*** Bug 1394980 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 2 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2019-05-01 23:26:24 UTC
 - v1.0.0 has been published 17 hours ago:
https://github.com/EnableSecurity/wafw00f/releases

 - Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
  Note: Package contains %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
  See: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/782

 - Package doesn't install:

DEBUG util.py:583:  BUILDSTDERR: Error: 
DEBUG util.py:583:  BUILDSTDERR:  Problem: conflicting requests
DEBUG util.py:583:  BUILDSTDERR:   - nothing provides python3.7dist(beautifulsoup4) = 4.6.0 needed by wafw00f-0.9.6-1.fc31.noarch
DEBUG util.py:583:  BUILDSTDERR:   - nothing provides python3.7dist(pluginbase) = 0.7 needed by wafw00f-0.9.6-1.fc31.noarch

 Relay these dependencies.



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

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


Issues:
=======
- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
- Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
  Note: Package contains %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
  See: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/782


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

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
     License", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 68 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/bob/packaging/review/wafw00f/review-wafw00f/licensecheck.txt
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
     license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
     license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
     process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
     packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
     versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
     use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: Mock build failed
     See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
     guidelines/#_use_rpmlint
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: wafw00f-0.9.6-1.fc31.noarch.rpm
          wafw00f-0.9.6-1.fc31.src.rpm
wafw00f.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wafw00f
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Comment 3 Fabian Affolter 2019-05-06 17:54:24 UTC
I opened a PR against the upstream project to get some things fixed.

Comment 4 Fabian Affolter 2019-05-27 12:23:19 UTC
* Sun May 05 2019 Fabian Affolter <mail> - 1.0.0-1
- Fix files section and add tests
- Update to latest upstream release 1.0.0

Updated files:
Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/wafw00f.spec
SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/wafw00f-1.0.0-1.fc30.src.rpm

Comment 5 Fabian Affolter 2019-09-04 07:04:20 UTC
Is there something missing?

Comment 6 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2019-09-10 21:42:09 UTC
oved.kaye app, pao +o

Comment 7 Gwyn Ciesla 2019-09-11 13:07:17 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/wafw00f

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2019-10-18 06:03:28 UTC
FEDORA-2019-725ba1dca1 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-725ba1dca1

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2019-10-18 17:35:56 UTC
wafw00f-1.0.0-3.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-725ba1dca1

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2019-10-27 01:29:29 UTC
wafw00f-1.0.0-3.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.