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 1500072 - Review Request: macromilter - Milter to check mails for suspicious Microsoft VBA macro code
Summary: Review Request: macromilter - Milter to check mails for suspicious Microsoft ...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Robert-André Mauchin 🐧
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 1471561 1505374
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2017-10-09 19:52 UTC by Robert Scheck
Modified: 2017-11-11 03:04 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2017-11-01 00:18:15 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:
zebob.m: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Robert Scheck 2017-10-09 19:52:20 UTC
Spec URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/macromilter.spec
SRPM URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/macromilter-3.3-1.20171009git.src.rpm
Description: Python based milter for Sendmail and Postfix MTA servers to
check incoming e-mails for Microsoft Office attachments. If a Microsoft
Office document is attached to the e-mail, it will be scanned for suspicious
VBA macro code. Files with malicious macros are, depending on configuration, 
either removed and replaced by harmless text files or alternatively the whole 
e-mail will be rejected.
Fedora Account System Username: robert

In case a reviewer insists to change the package notation to MacroMilter, I
am fine with it, as long as paths inside package are lowercase; latter is also
upstream's intention. Not sure if it's a good idea to have it not consistent;
maybe reviewer has an opinion?

Comment 1 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2017-10-24 11:29:39 UTC
Hello,

 - For a dev snapshot, add the shortcommit to the Release field too:

Release:           1.20171009git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}

  And:

* Mon Oct 09 2017 Robert Scheck <robert> 3.3-1.20171009git4e8295f

 - Package rame and SPEC name should be kept lowercase imho.

Package is good otherwise, it is accepted.



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.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 37 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/bob/packaging/review/macromilter/review-
     macromilter/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /etc/logrotate.d(samba-
     common, logrotate, ppp, sssd-common)
[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.
[x]: 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]: 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]: 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

===== 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.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: 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: macromilter-3.3-1.20171009git.fc28.noarch.rpm
          macromilter-3.3-1.20171009git.fc28.src.rpm
macromilter.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Milter -> Mister, Miller, Filter
macromilter.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US milter -> molter, miler, miter
macromilter.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/macromilter macromilter
macromilter.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/macromilter macromilter
macromilter.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/macromilter 750
macromilter.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/log/macromilter macromilter
macromilter.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/log/macromilter macromilter
macromilter.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/log/macromilter 750
macromilter.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary macromilter
macromilter.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Milter -> Mister, Miller, Filter
macromilter.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US milter -> molter, miler, miter
macromilter.src:51: W: macro-in-comment %{_bindir}
macromilter.src:51: W: macro-in-comment %{_bindir}
macromilter.src:51: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 12 warnings.

Comment 2 Gwyn Ciesla 2017-10-24 13:32:14 UTC
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/macromilter

Comment 3 Robert Scheck 2017-10-24 19:27:52 UTC
Robert-André, thank you very much for the review!

Comment 4 Fedora Update System 2017-10-24 21:52:55 UTC
macromilter-3.3-1.20171009git4e8295f.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-908d39fa3a

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2017-10-24 21:54:46 UTC
macromilter-3.3-1.20171009git4e8295f.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-9c37660a0a

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2017-10-24 21:55:23 UTC
macromilter-3.3-1.20171009git4e8295f.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-0fe0ed4ce2

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2017-10-26 01:11:46 UTC
macromilter-3.3-1.20171009git4e8295f.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-2017-9c37660a0a

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2017-10-26 01:33:44 UTC
macromilter-3.3-1.20171009git4e8295f.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 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-2017-7575af4524

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2017-10-26 14:08:26 UTC
macromilter-3.3-1.20171009git4e8295f.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-2017-0fe0ed4ce2

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2017-10-27 18:43:43 UTC
macromilter-3.3-1.20171009git4e8295f.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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-2017-908d39fa3a

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2017-11-01 00:18:15 UTC
macromilter-3.3-1.20171009git4e8295f.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2017-11-03 13:30:04 UTC
macromilter-3.3-1.20171009git4e8295f.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2017-11-03 13:45:05 UTC
macromilter-3.3-1.20171009git4e8295f.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2017-11-11 03:04:31 UTC
macromilter-3.3-1.20171009git4e8295f.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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.