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 1820914 - Review Request: w13scan - Passive Security Scanner
Summary: Review Request: w13scan - Passive Security Scanner
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Whiteboard: NotReady
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2020-04-04 16:42 UTC by Fabian Affolter
Modified: 2021-03-10 13:25 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed:
Type: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Fabian Affolter 2020-04-04 16:42:33 UTC
Spec URL:

Project URL:

W13scan is a proxy-based web scanner that is focusing on security issues.

Koji scratch build:

rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint w13scan-0.9.17-1.fc31.src.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint w13scan-0.9.17-1.fc31.noarch.rpm 
w13scan.noarch: W: pem-certificate /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/W13SCAN/certs/ca.pem
w13scan.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary w13scan
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

Fedora Account System Username: fab

Comment 1 Hirotaka Wakabayashi 2020-05-22 03:20:11 UTC
Hello Fabian,

Please check my review.

Thanks in advance,
Hirotaka Wakabayashi

Package Review

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

* Latest Version
  0.9.17 is the newest version on although upstream also tagged
  2.0.0 on Which do you think the latest version is?
* Test Suites
  Could you execute a test suite in %check section if possible.
* Man pages
  Could you add a man page for w13scan if possible.

===== 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", "GNU Lesser General Public License".
     126 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
[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 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 %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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
[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
[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
[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 =====

[-]: 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.
[?]: 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.
[-]: 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
[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]: 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 =====

[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: w13scan-0.9.17-1.fc33.noarch.rpm
w13scan.noarch: W: pem-certificate /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/W13SCAN/certs/ca.pem
w13scan.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary w13scan
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
w13scan.noarch: W: pem-certificate /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/W13SCAN/certs/ca.pem
w13scan.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary w13scan
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

Source checksums
---------------- :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : c7fd1200c4af0b694c988757506543ab73d280a06b282bfe0457ee71078dd551
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c7fd1200c4af0b694c988757506543ab73d280a06b282bfe0457ee71078dd551

w13scan (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (cd5b7df) last change: 2020-03-19
Command line :try-fedora-review -b 1820914
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python
Disabled plugins: fonts, PHP, SugarActivity, Ruby, Perl, C/C++, Haskell, Ocaml, R, Java

Comment 2 Fabian Affolter 2020-05-30 14:59:19 UTC
Hirotaka, thanks for the review.

With the release 2.0.0 upstream introduced massive changes including the removal of the setup. The main problem now is that they don't want support PyPI anymore. Also, a bunch of pull requests were not merged without legit reasons and a conversation about the unbundling was closed without interaction.

At the moment, w13scan should not be introduced as upstream is reluctant to work with downstream. I will postpone the work on this review request but I don't have much hope that upstream will come around.

Comment 3 Hirotaka Wakabayashi 2020-05-30 17:06:23 UTC
Hello Fabian,

Thank you very much for your comment. I can understand the situation 
and I support your decision. Please let me know whenever upstream 
changes the mind. I will review this again.

Best Regards,
Hirotaka Wakabayashi

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