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
Bug 1056235 (nfspy) - Review Request: nfspy - An ID-spoofing NFS client
Summary: Review Request: nfspy - An ID-spoofing NFS client
Alias: nfspy
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Michael S.
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2014-01-21 18:25 UTC by Fabian Affolter
Modified: 2014-09-25 12:11 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version: nfspy-1.0-2.fc20
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2014-03-24 06:39:37 UTC
Type: ---
misc: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Fabian Affolter 2014-01-21 18:25:48 UTC
Spec URL:

Project URL:

NfSpy is a Python library for automating the falsification of NFS credentials
when mounting an NFS share. Included are two client programs:

- nfspy uses the Filesystem in Userspace (FUSE) library to mount an NFS share
  in Linux. This allows the use of any regular file-searching and manipulation
  programs like grep and find to explore the NFS export.
- nfspysh is a ftp-like interactive shell for exploring NFS exports. It does
  not require the FUSE library, so it can run on non-Linux platforms.

Koji scratch build:

rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint nfspy-1.0-1.fc20.src.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint nfspy-1.0-1.fc20.noarch.rpm 
nfspy.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nfspysh
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Fedora Account System Username: fab

Comment 1 Michael S. 2014-01-21 20:10:43 UTC
The main script is missing ( nfspy ), it should be in /usr/bin, no ?

Comment 2 Michael S. 2014-01-21 20:13:35 UTC
In fact, that's because of this in :

scripts = ['scripts/nfspysh']
    import fuse

so you need to have fuse python module as a BuildRequires.

Comment 3 Michael S. 2014-01-21 20:19:26 UTC
Package is ok, modulo missing script, see previous comment.
Please fix before uploading the package.

Package Review

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

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

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[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". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in
[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 20480 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]: 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 %doc.
[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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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 does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

[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]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

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

[-]: 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.
[-]: 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
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

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

[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.

Checking: nfspy-1.0-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
nfspy.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nfspysh
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
# rpmlint nfspy
nfspy.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nfspysh
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'

nfspy (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


Source checksums
---------------- :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 1b4a61eeb3b44b37326590847e8d45346dd2bcf3e1d64b8935ba4c8ce85f0119
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1b4a61eeb3b44b37326590847e8d45346dd2bcf3e1d64b8935ba4c8ce85f0119

Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (cf29f98) last change: 2013-02-08
Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 1056235
Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby

Comment 4 Fabian Affolter 2014-01-22 09:05:42 UTC
Michael, thanks for the review.

Comment 5 Fabian Affolter 2014-01-22 16:59:15 UTC
New Package SCM Request
Package Name: nfspy
Short Description: An ID-spoofing NFS client
Owners: fab
Branches: F19 F20

Comment 6 Gwyn Ciesla 2014-01-22 17:14:10 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2014-02-25 14:48:24 UTC
nfspy-1.0-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2014-02-25 14:48:33 UTC
nfspy-1.0-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2014-02-26 13:58:30 UTC
nfspy-1.0-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2014-03-24 06:39:37 UTC
nfspy-1.0-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2014-03-24 06:45:54 UTC
nfspy-1.0-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.

Comment 12 Fabian Affolter 2014-09-24 21:06:31 UTC
Package Change Request
Package Name: nfspy
New Branches: el6 epel7
Owners: fab

Comment 13 Gwyn Ciesla 2014-09-25 12:11:07 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.