Bug 1446916

Summary: Review Request: x509viewer - Simple tool to decode X.509 certificates
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Robert Scheck <redhat-bugzilla>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Christian Dersch <lupinix.fedora>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: rawhideCC: lupinix.fedora, package-review
Target Milestone: ---Flags: lupinix.fedora: fedora-review+
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2017-05-04 13:31:46 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Robert Scheck 2017-04-30 14:02:36 UTC
Spec URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/x509viewer.spec
SRPM URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/x509viewer-0.1.0-1.src.rpm
Description: x509viewer is a simple command line application, written
in Perl, that can be used to decode one or multiple X.509 certificates
per given file, such as e.g. SSL certificates, CSRs (certificate signing 
requests), but also private keys.

Comment 1 Christian Dersch 2017-04-30 19:40:56 UTC
Approved! The spec contains some legacy stuff like Group and BuildRoot. You may think of removing them, but that is not a requirement here.


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: "GPL", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files
     have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/review/1446916-x509viewer/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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]: 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]: 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

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

Generic:
[!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
     Note: Could not download Source0: https://ftp.robert-
     scheck.de/linux/x509viewer/x509viewer-0.1.0.tar.gz
     See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags
==> I can download this manually from link, what is the issue here?

[!]: Buildroot is not present
     Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
==> Maybe remove that?

[!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
     Note: %clean present but not required
Maybe remove that?

[-]: 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]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
     Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: 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]: 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]: 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: x509viewer-0.1.0-1.fc27.noarch.rpm
          x509viewer-0.1.0-1.fc27.src.rpm
x509viewer.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary x509viewer
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
x509viewer.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary x509viewer
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.



Requires
--------
x509viewer (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/openssl
    /usr/bin/perl
    perl(Fcntl)
    perl(Getopt::Long)
    perl(IPC::Open3)
    perl(strict)



Provides
--------
x509viewer:
    x509viewer



Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -L rpm_deps/ -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1446916
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

Comment 2 Robert Scheck 2017-04-30 19:58:04 UTC
(In reply to Christian Dersch from comment #1)
> Approved! The spec contains some legacy stuff like Group and BuildRoot. You
> may think of removing them, but that is not a requirement here.

Thank you very much! As of writing, I have to serve some legacy systems, thus
I try to reuse the same spec file to keep the efforts low. Will remove all the
legacy stuff from the spec file sooner or later.

Comment 3 Gwyn Ciesla 2017-04-30 22:25:07 UTC
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/x509viewer

Comment 4 Fedora Update System 2017-04-30 22:45:33 UTC
x509viewer-0.1.0-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-739ddf50ab

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2017-04-30 22:46:35 UTC
x509viewer-0.1.0-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-88c352bd4d

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2017-04-30 22:47:28 UTC
x509viewer-0.1.0-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-5f4029a8f2

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2017-04-30 22:48:18 UTC
x509viewer-0.1.0-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-6e0f5735cc

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2017-04-30 22:49:00 UTC
x509viewer-0.1.0-1.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-c9e53fa3f1

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2017-05-02 03:30:06 UTC
x509viewer-0.1.0-1.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-2017-88c352bd4d

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2017-05-02 05:04:26 UTC
x509viewer-0.1.0-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 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-2017-5f4029a8f2

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2017-05-02 06:36:37 UTC
x509viewer-0.1.0-1.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-2017-739ddf50ab

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2017-05-02 06:47:57 UTC
x509viewer-0.1.0-1.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-2017-c9e53fa3f1

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2017-05-02 06:55:25 UTC
x509viewer-0.1.0-1.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-2017-6e0f5735cc

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2017-05-04 13:31:46 UTC
x509viewer-0.1.0-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2017-05-10 03:54:11 UTC
x509viewer-0.1.0-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 16 Fedora Update System 2017-05-10 03:59:17 UTC
x509viewer-0.1.0-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 17 Fedora Update System 2017-05-18 00:20:28 UTC
x509viewer-0.1.0-1.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 18 Fedora Update System 2017-05-18 00:54:09 UTC
x509viewer-0.1.0-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.