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 1393021 - Review Request: pulledpork - Pulled Pork for Snort and Suricata rule management
Summary: Review Request: pulledpork - Pulled Pork for Snort and Suricata rule management
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jason Taylor
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2016-11-08 17:21 UTC by marcindulak
Modified: 2016-12-01 15:22 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-11-28 05:48:25 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
jtfas90: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description marcindulak 2016-11-08 17:21:42 UTC
Spec URL: http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/pulledpork/r01/pulledpork.spec
SRPM URL: http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/pulledpork/r01/pulledpork-0.7.3-1.fc23.src.rpm
Description: Pulled Pork for Snort and Suricata rule management (from Google code).
Fedora Account System Username: marcindulak

Comment 2 Jason Taylor 2016-11-09 00:38:05 UTC
Hi Marcin,

A couple of items:

1. LICENSE should be tagged as %license under %files. It is currently listed as %doc in the spec

2. It might be worth getting licensing clarification on contrib/oink-conv.pl. Either include a GPL2 header as pulledpork.pl does or similar indicator.

3. The spec as written does not define ownership of the /etc/pulledpork directory

4. The spec as written does not define ownership of /usr/share/pulledpork

5. Take a look at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl for additional items related to packaging perl.

Thanks!

JT

Comment 3 marcindulak 2016-11-09 01:38:04 UTC
Spec URL: http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/pulledpork/r02/pulledpork.spec
SRPM URL: http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/pulledpork/r02/pulledpork-0.7.2-1.fc23.src.rpm

Changes:

1. %license macro is used LICENSE

2. asked for clarification at https://github.com/shirkdog/pulledpork/issues/234

3. fixed ownership of /etc/pulledpork

4. fixed ownership of /usr/share/pulledpork

5. added according to perl packaging guide:

BuildRequires:  perl-generators
BuildRequires:  perl

Requires:       perl(LWP::Protocol::https)

Comment 4 Jason Taylor 2016-11-09 14:29:14 UTC
#4 doesn't appear to be fixed. I show the files under /usr/share/pulledpork directory is still unowned.

rpm -ql pulledpork shows:

/etc/pulledpork
/etc/pulledpork/disablesid.conf
/etc/pulledpork/dropsid.conf
/etc/pulledpork/enablesid.conf
/etc/pulledpork/modifysid.conf
/etc/pulledpork/pulledpork.conf
/usr/bin/pulledpork
/usr/share/doc/pulledpork
/usr/share/doc/pulledpork/README.CATEGORIES
/usr/share/doc/pulledpork/README.CHANGES
/usr/share/doc/pulledpork/README.RULESET
/usr/share/doc/pulledpork/README.SHAREDOBJECTS
/usr/share/doc/pulledpork/README.md
/usr/share/licenses/pulledpork
/usr/share/licenses/pulledpork/LICENSE
/usr/share/pulledpork/contrib
/usr/share/pulledpork/contrib/README.CONTRIB
/usr/share/pulledpork/contrib/oink-conv.pl

the files are owned but the directory itself is not declared.

Comment 6 Jason Taylor 2016-11-09 18:31:39 UTC
looks good.

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

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



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

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[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.
[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.
[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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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

Perl:
[-]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:.
     Note: Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`";
     echo $version)) missing?

===== 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.
[x]: 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:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: pulledpork-0.7.2-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
          pulledpork-0.7.2-1.fc24.src.rpm
pulledpork.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pulledpork
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
pulledpork.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pulledpork
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.



Requires
--------
pulledpork (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/perl
    config(pulledpork)
    perl(Archive::Tar)
    perl(Carp)
    perl(Crypt::SSLeay)
    perl(Cwd)
    perl(Data::Dumper)
    perl(Digest::MD5)
    perl(File::Basename)
    perl(File::Copy)
    perl(File::Find)
    perl(File::Path)
    perl(Getopt::Long)
    perl(HTTP::Request::Common)
    perl(HTTP::Status)
    perl(LWP::Protocol::https)
    perl(LWP::UserAgent)
    perl(POSIX)
    perl(Sys::Syslog)
    perl(strict)
    perl(warnings)



Provides
--------
pulledpork:
    config(pulledpork)
    pulledpork



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/shirkdog/pulledpork/archive/v0.7.2.tar.gz#/pulledpork-0.7.2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 50046477d5d1a18aec131a56bd3f21170057d8a31fd6f30af706e31d5b14bd0a
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 50046477d5d1a18aec131a56bd3f21170057d8a31fd6f30af706e31d5b14bd0a


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1393021
Buildroot used: fedora-24-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Perl
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

Comment 7 marcindulak 2016-11-09 18:39:46 UTC
thanks

Comment 8 Gwyn Ciesla 2016-11-09 18:45:05 UTC
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/pulledpork

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2016-11-09 23:33:28 UTC
pulledpork-0.7.2-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-6e20685523

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2016-11-09 23:41:29 UTC
pulledpork-0.7.2-1.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-b12d1389ac

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2016-11-11 10:16:48 UTC
pulledpork-0.7.2-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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-EPEL-2016-b12d1389ac

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2016-11-11 13:53:10 UTC
pulledpork-0.7.2-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 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-EPEL-2016-6e20685523

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2016-11-28 05:48:25 UTC
pulledpork-0.7.2-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2016-12-01 15:22:37 UTC
pulledpork-0.7.2-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.


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