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 1844803
| Summary: | Review Request: scanless - An online port scan scraper | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Fabian Affolter <mail> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <zebob.m> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | 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: | 2020-07-06 01:01:48 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
2020-06-07 10:02:56 UTC
- Installation error: DEBUG util.py:621: Error: DEBUG util.py:621: Problem 1: conflicting requests DEBUG util.py:621: - nothing provides python3.9dist(bs4) needed by python3-scanless-2.1.2-1.fc33.noarch DEBUG util.py:621: Problem 2: package scanless-2.1.2-1.fc33.noarch requires python3-scanless = 2.1.2-1.fc33, but none of the providers can be installed DEBUG util.py:621: - conflicting requests DEBUG util.py:621: - nothing provides python3.9dist(bs4) needed by python3-scanless-2.1.2-1.fc33.noarch Patch the source to use "beautifulsoup4" instead of "bs4". bs4 is a dummy package. Package approved. Please fix the aforementioned issue before import. 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/ ===== 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]: 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: "Unknown or generated". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/scanless/review- scanless/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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 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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-scanless [?]: 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. [-]: 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: scanless-2.1.2-1.fc33.noarch.rpm python3-scanless-2.1.2-1.fc33.noarch.rpm scanless-2.1.2-1.fc33.src.rpm scanless.noarch: W: no-documentation scanless.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary scanless python3-scanless.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary scanless 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/scanless FEDORA-2020-2e5f3e6f27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-2e5f3e6f27 FEDORA-2020-bdbbe7a9be has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-bdbbe7a9be FEDORA-2020-0cae33336b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-0cae33336b FEDORA-2020-049bc4431c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-049bc4431c FEDORA-EPEL-2020-8e3b867045 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-8e3b867045 FEDORA-2020-0cae33336b has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-0cae33336b \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-0cae33336b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-EPEL-2020-8e3b867045 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-8e3b867045 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-2020-049bc4431c has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-049bc4431c \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-049bc4431c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-2020-0cae33336b has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. FEDORA-2020-049bc4431c has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. FEDORA-EPEL-2020-8e3b867045 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. |