Bug 2244318

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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
     upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
     licenses manually.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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 32914 bytes in 1 files.
[ ]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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
     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

Python:
[ ]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
     Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?)
[ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
     process.
[ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[ ]: 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

===== 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.
[-]: 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.
[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:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Bad spec filename:
     /home/fedora/reviews/python-ssh-audit/2244318-python-
     ssh-audit/srpm-unpacked/ssh-audit.spec
     See: (this test has no URL)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-ssh-audit-3.0.0-1.fc38.noarch.rpm
          python-ssh-audit-3.0.0-1.fc38.src.rpm
================================================== rpmlint session starts =================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpxau2r2ia')]
checks: 31, packages: 2

python3-ssh-audit.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/ssh_audit/ssh_audit.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3
python3-ssh-audit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ssh-audit
python-ssh-audit.src: E: invalid-spec-name
=================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 3.1 s ==================




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 1

python3-ssh-audit.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/ssh_audit/ssh_audit.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3
python3-ssh-audit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ssh-audit
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.8 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/s/ssh-audit/ssh-audit-3.0.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : a6a9f94f6f718b56961b70dbf1efcc0e42b3441822e1ea7b0c043fce1f749072
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a6a9f94f6f718b56961b70dbf1efcc0e42b3441822e1ea7b0c043fce1f749072


Requires
--------
python3-ssh-audit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    python(abi)
    python3dist(setuptools)



Provides
--------
python3-ssh-audit:
    python-ssh-audit
    python3-ssh-audit
    python3.11-ssh-audit
    python3.11dist(ssh-audit)
    python3dist(ssh-audit)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2244318 -m fedora-38-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic
Disabled plugins: C/C++, Java, Ruby, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, R, PHP, Perl
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) Koji build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=107583245
b) Can any of the tests be run?
c) If not tests or only a minimal set of tests can be run, for example due
to network use or missing dependencies, can %py3_check_import macro  be
added to the %check section
d) Can the newer packaging macros be used, see:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/
e) Upstream publishes signatures:
https://github.com/jtesta/ssh-audit/releases/tag/v3.0.0
May want to use these, though getting source from pypi is also fine

Thank you for the review!

I've made quite a few changes to the spec, as well as renamed it to just `ssh-audit` to conform with the current naming policies for python "binaries", as this is not supposed to be used as a library, necessarily.

Regarding your comments:

> a) Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=107583245
Great, thank you.

> b) Can any of the tests be run?

I tried for a bit to get the tox tests to run against python3.12, but my knowledge is slightly lacking here. The %tox macro completes, but doesn't appear to have spent enough time to have actually run the test suite. Any advice here would be appreciated. I did run tox manually inside a rawhide container substituting 3.12 for 3.11, and the tests do appear to pass. I think there is something going on with the tox macro I don't quite understand.

> c) If not tests or only a minimal set of tests can be run, for example due
to network use or missing dependencies, can %py3_check_import macro  be
added to the %check section

Since tox doesn't appear to be doing what I think it should, I've added this into the check section as well.

> d) Can the newer packaging macros be used, see:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/

Yep - Migrated over to them. I thought something was off about the spec...

> e) Upstream publishes signatures:
> https://github.com/jtesta/ssh-audit/releases/tag/v3.0.0
> May want to use these, though getting source from pypi is also fine

Noted, and added %gpgverify to the spec. As a note, I was not able to find the pubkey anywhere except in the Github Releases for a version, it would be best I think to have it somewhere else, though it matters little once it is initially imported. Still, I will open a ticket with the upstream to discuss that.


New specs:

Spec URL: https://neil.fedorapeople.org/for-review/ssh-audit.spec
SRPM URL: https://neil.fedorapeople.org/for-review/ssh-audit-3.0.0-1.fc40.src.rpm

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: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT
     License". 136 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/fedora/python-ssh-audit/2244318-ssh-
     audit/licensecheck.txt
[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
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: 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 32914 bytes in 1 files.
[ ]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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
     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

Python:
[-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
     process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[ ]: 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 =====

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.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[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]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
[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: ssh-audit-3.0.0-1.fc38.noarch.rpm
          ssh-audit-3.0.0-1.fc38.src.rpm
=================================== rpmlint session starts ===================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp72k8bitr')]
checks: 31, packages: 2

ssh-audit.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/ssh_audit/ssh_audit.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3
ssh-audit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ssh-audit
==== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 7.9 s ====




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 1

ssh-audit.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/ssh_audit/ssh_audit.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3
ssh-audit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ssh-audit
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.9 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/jtesta/ssh-audit/releases/download/v3.0.0/jtesta_2020-2025.asc :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 9a38a116191e7f1f2fbc41fa4f55d6c1294dbc2e0cd0b40b36090978003aefd9
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9a38a116191e7f1f2fbc41fa4f55d6c1294dbc2e0cd0b40b36090978003aefd9
https://github.com/jtesta/ssh-audit/releases/download/v3.0.0/ssh-audit-3.0.0.tar.gz.sig :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 9a2197af22011c023c4ef723ead4f8d1611384cbbd3f4caf196d58e85eb8586f
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9a2197af22011c023c4ef723ead4f8d1611384cbbd3f4caf196d58e85eb8586f
https://github.com/jtesta/ssh-audit/archive/v3.0.0/ssh-audit-3.0.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 42ef70e004c06f3b09e7d93e3c6e2d667bec0335b6e171f2c5024503ebd5c166
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 42ef70e004c06f3b09e7d93e3c6e2d667bec0335b6e171f2c5024503ebd5c166


Requires
--------
ssh-audit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    python(abi)



Provides
--------
ssh-audit:
    python3.11dist(ssh-audit)
    python3dist(ssh-audit)
    ssh-audit



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2244318 -m fedora-38-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Haskell, Java, fonts, PHP, R, C/C++, Ocaml, Perl, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) There is a man page, ssh-audit.1 which would be good to package.
b) Can remove:
%license LICENSE
License file is picked up in metadata:
$ rpm -qL ssh-audit-3.0.0-1.fc38.noarch.rpm
/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/ssh_audit-3.0.0.dist-info/LICENSE
/usr/share/licenses/ssh-audit/LICENSE
c) It seems possible to run the tests using pytest:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=107754203
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/4284/107754284/build.log

a) Good catch. Added this in.
b) done, thanks
c) again, thank you. Changed to pytest

spec and srpm are available at the same URLs.

koji build - https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=107770080

More warnings and errors:

ssh-audit.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/ssh_audit/ssh_audit.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3
ssh-audit.spec:55: W: macro-in-%changelog %license
ssh-audit.spec:60: W: macro-in-%changelog %gpgverify
ssh-audit.spec:61: W: macro-in-%changelog %check


can the shebang in ssh_audit.py be removed?
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_shebang_lines
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_shebangs

Can macros be removed from changelog? For example us "license macro" instead of "%license". As
package has not been imported yet, no need to have extensive changelog entries.

I was testing the tool and found this review request. I'm adding some comments.

> BuildRequires:  pytest

Would be better:

BuildRequires:  python3dist(pytest)


> %autosetup -n ssh-audit-%{version}

It can be just %autosetup


> # Remove bundled egg-info
> rm -rf %{name}.egg-info

No need as you're using pyproject-rpm-macros and takes care of it


You can add the following in the %prep section, after %autosetup, to fix the "E: non-executable-script" error:

#remove shebang
sed -i -e '1{\@^#!/usr/bin/env python@d}' src/ssh_audit/ssh_audit.py


In the %files section, add the following:
%license LICENSE


Also, I would replace Release and %changelog content for rpmautospec's %autorelease & %autochangelog

License file is correctly marked in teh metadata so no need to add %license LICENSE in the %files section

$ rpm -qL ssh-audit-3.0.0-1.fc38.noarch.rpm
/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/ssh_audit-3.0.0.dist-info/LICENSE

ssh-audit 3.1.0 has been released that includes Terrapin vulnerability checks.

Neil, if you can't continue with the review I can open a new BZ and apply requested changes.

Spec URL: https://neil.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ssh-audit/ssh-audit.spec
SRPM URL: https://neil.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ssh-audit/ssh-audit-3.1.0-1.fc39.src.rpm

address comments in review

For clarity - I have made the requested changes aside from using autochangelog/autorelease, as these are not currently macros I have interest in using as they make it difficult to maintain packages for EPEL.

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6848389
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2244318-ssh-audit/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06848389-ssh-audit/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Thanks for updating Neil!

> %license LICENSE

As per https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2244318#c7 it's not required. 

As Benson took the BZ I'll leave him to review it, but I can do it if you want Benson.

Spec URL: https://neil.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ssh-audit/ssh-audit.spec
SRPM URL: https://neil.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ssh-audit/ssh-audit-3.1.0-1.fc39.src.rpm

oops! Should've given that another pass before uploading :) -- addressed license thing

Created attachment 2006925 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6848389 to 6850761

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6850761
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2244318-ssh-audit/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06850761-ssh-audit/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

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: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT
     License". 136 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/fedora/2244318-ssh-audit/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[ ]: 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 25799 bytes in 1 files.
[ ]: 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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
     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

Python:
[-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
     Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?)
[-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
     process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[ ]: 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

===== 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.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: 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]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

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

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: ssh-audit-3.1.0-1.fc40.noarch.rpm
          ssh-audit-3.1.0-1.fc40.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpejxhtim7')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/jtesta/ssh-audit/releases/download/v3.1.0/jtesta_2020-2025.asc :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 9a38a116191e7f1f2fbc41fa4f55d6c1294dbc2e0cd0b40b36090978003aefd9
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9a38a116191e7f1f2fbc41fa4f55d6c1294dbc2e0cd0b40b36090978003aefd9
https://github.com/jtesta/ssh-audit/releases/download/v3.1.0/ssh-audit-3.1.0.tar.gz.sig :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 2e1c93db8245a1b1a5c0b9a6455423fb83904fbdafdb4a266cf2c6931185688f
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2e1c93db8245a1b1a5c0b9a6455423fb83904fbdafdb4a266cf2c6931185688f
https://github.com/jtesta/ssh-audit/archive/v3.1.0/ssh-audit-3.1.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : bea22074aa13f61cbe8e6876912a7eb5796569d980a7429deef112dc51ffd604
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bea22074aa13f61cbe8e6876912a7eb5796569d980a7429deef112dc51ffd604


Requires
--------
ssh-audit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    python(abi)



Provides
--------
ssh-audit:
    python3.12dist(ssh-audit)
    python3dist(ssh-audit)
    ssh-audit



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2244318
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: C/C++, Haskell, SugarActivity, fonts, R, Ocaml, Perl, Java, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) Thanks. Approved.
b) Head of upstream repository seems to have support for Python3.12

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ssh-audit

FEDORA-2024-027200e58b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-027200e58b

FEDORA-2024-027200e58b has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-027200e58b \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-027200e58b

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2024-989afa382a has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-989afa382a \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-989afa382a

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2024-027200e58b has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2024-989afa382a has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.