Bug 239097

This is a pre-review:

Encountered the following under MUST:

MUST: Packaging Guidelines
 * I get the following when trying to install the RPM:

      error: Failed dependencies:
              perl(LW) is needed by nikto-1.36-1.noarch

   I notice Nikto itself provides an LW.pm -- should this be installed and a 
   Provides line created?
 
   I can only find perl-libwhisker2 (which provides LW2.pm) in Fedora.

Output of rpmlint:

% rpmlint -i -v nikto-1.36-1.fc6.noarch.rpm 
I: nikto checking
% echo $?
0

Under SHOULD:

No issues.  I was able to successfully build the package under mock.

Everything else appears to check out.

Note that the rpmlint output does not indicate any issues, I was merely
including it in the review as suggested by the Review Guidelines.

LW.pm is provided by the libwhisker2 package via a compability bridge. LW is
discontinued and LW2 is recommended by upstream. Nikto will work just fine with
the LW2 LW1 compability bridge. How to solve this package wise I don't know
though. Suggestions welcome.

Options I see:

 * Modify perl-libwhisker2 to include the LW1 compatability bridge.  Perhaps as
a -compat sub-package -- perl-libwhisker2-compat
 * Patch nikto to use LW2 calls (might be too much work)
 * See if nikto upstream would release a version for LW2 specifically
 * Create a perl-libwhisker package using the last stable version of LW.pl

I like option #3 best, but probably not realistic. :-)  Option 1 would be my
choice.  You'd have to work with the maintainer of that package however.

Option #4 might be doable as well, but if LW1 is retired, do we really want to
bring it into Fedora?

I'm the maintainer of perl-libwhisker2. It already contains the compability
bridge in the base package. See #239096 and let's continue discussion about
changes to the perl-libwhisker2 there.

(In reply to comment #3)
> LW.pm is provided by the libwhisker2 package via a compability bridge. LW is
> discontinued and LW2 is recommended by upstream. Nikto will work just fine with
> the LW2 LW1 compability bridge. How to solve this package wise I don't know
> though. Suggestions welcome.

You don't have to do anything, it's fine; yum is smart enough to figure out
which package provides perl(LW) (...which would be "perl-libwhisker2").

Ray: If you try to install the package with yum localinstall <packagename>,
you'll see what I mean. :-)

From a (very) quick look-over I can only spot one error in the spec:
You do not need "Requires: perl-libwhisker" - again, RPM and yum does this
automatically.

If Ray doesn't grab this one, I'll give it a full review in a few hours.

Ok, doing review:

MUST items:
 * rpmlint is silent
 * package and spec file are named well
 * package meets Packaging Guidelines
 * package contains code licensed under the GPL, license file included 
 * package contains code NOT licensed under the GPL. The following is the
license contained in the *.db files:

# This file may only be distributed and used with the full Nikto package.
# This file may not be used with any software product without written permission
from CIRT, Inc.
# (c) 2001-2007 CIRT, Inc., All Rights Reserved.
# By sending any database updates to CIRT, Inc., it is assumed that you
# grant CIRT, Inc., the unlimited, non-exclusive right to reuse, modify and
relicense the changes.

IMO this is acceptable, since the content (the plugin db's) are freely
distributable along with (and for use with) the nikto package (however, IANAL),
but it does impact the license of RPM as a whole (see next point)

X* "License" field in spec is MOSTLY correct (applies to code, not the content)
!* license file is included in %doc (might want to add a second one, see NOTES
below)
 * spec file is written in American English and legible
 * package source md5sum matches upstream source:

d70107deb225489ecf20e2b46684674e  nikto-1.36.tar.bz2

 * package is noarch, builds successfully
 * BuildRequires are good
X* Unnecessary "Requires" entry (see comment #6)
 * package handles locales properly (no locales)
 * package has no need for %post and %postun sections
 * package is not relocatable
 * package owns directories it creates
 * no duplicate entries in %files
 * file permissions are good
 * proper %clean section
 * spec file macros are used consistently
!* package contains GPL'ed code a content under a different license
 * no -doc, -devel subpackages necessary
X- some docs are missing (see NOTES below)
 * contents in %doc not required for runtime functionality of application

SHOULD items:
 * package builds in mock (fc6/i386)
 * package functions properly

NOTES:

Patches:
Do note that the "nikto-1.36-config.patch" patch hardcodes the package's config
file location. There at least needs to be a comment about this in the spec; if
someone moved %{_sysconfdir} they would want to know why the package won't work
anymore... What I would recommend, however, is removing the patch, and replacing
it with sed scripts in %prep, making use of RPM's macros. For example, the
following line (if used in %prep) would do what the first entry in the patch
does, except that the package just needs to be rebuilt (without modification) if
any dir locations ever change:

sed -i
"s:$CFG{configfile}=\"config.txt\":$CFG{configfile}=\"%{_sysconfdir}/nikto/config\":"
nikto.pl

Docs:
Maybe include the READE_plugins.txt file? It might be outdated, but its the only
plug-in documentation in the package...

License:
As the content is licensed under a GPL-incompatible license, and CIRT only
allows for the distribution of the necessary plugin content along with the FULL
nikto package, you will have to change the "License" field of the RPM to
something like "Custom, see LICENSE.txt" (or whatever file is appropriate).
Also, I would recommend adding a "database-license.txt" (or something similar)
file containing the license information to %doc (the license is in the header of
each .db file). rpmlint is going to moan about such a "custom" License field
entry, but it's unavoidable here.

Other than these points, the package looks good. Fix the mentioned issues (or
argue against them ;-) ), and I'll approve the package.

Updated: 

- Remove libwhisker Requires
- Replace configfile patch with sed magic
- Update License
- Add database-license.txt and README_plugins.txt to %doc

Spec URL: http://folk.ntnu.no/sindrb/packages/green_nyc/nikto.spec
SRPM URL: http://folk.ntnu.no/sindrb/packages/green_nyc/nikto-1.36-2.fc7.src.rpm

Created attachment 155554 [details]
Example sed inline script to fixup paths in nikto's default config file

Ok, almost there... However, the sed one-liner in comment #7 was just an
example - you'll need to call sed on "config.txt" as well in order to
"re-create" the effects of the "nikto-1.36-config.patch" patch. Because
config.txt is a user-editable configuration file, this isn't a big issue,
although we probably want to enable nikto to use nmap by default (esp.
considering it's listed in Requires, and the -2 release isn't using it by
default).

I have attached a text file with a 2-liner sed script that adds the "missing"
changes from nikto-1.36-config.patch. Please add it, and then I'll do a final
review.

Is %prep the right place for this sed magic? 

Updated: 

- Add sed magic to really replace nikto-1.36-config.patch

Spec URL: http://folk.ntnu.no/sindrb/packages/green_nyc/nikto.spec
SRPM URL: http://folk.ntnu.no/sindrb/packages/green_nyc/nikto-1.36-3.fc7.src.rpm

(In reply to comment #10)
> Is %prep the right place for this sed magic? 

Yes, because we are essentially just applying an "in-line" patch :-).

The sed magic modifies (i.e. patches or "prepares") the package content for
compilation (it is not actually being built yet) and installation (obviously
it's not being installed yet either). In this case, "compilation" is not
applicable, so %build is empty, but patching a file using sed is not equivalent
to "building" it.

Anyhow, on with the review:

+ Good points from comment #7 still apply, except:
+ rpmlint output isn't silent, but OK:

W: nikto invalid-license Custom, see LICENSE.txt

-- This is expected, due to the fact that the code is GPL, but the .db content
isn't. (see comment #7)

+ Requires are good
+ License is good (code under GPL and content freely distributable with this
program)
+ License field gives appropriate license information
+ %docs are good
+ program installs and runs fine

Everything looks fine.

-------------------------
This package is APPROVED.
-------------------------

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: nikto
Short Description: Web server scanner
Owners: foolish
Branches: F-7 FC-6 EL-4 EL-5

CVS done.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: nikto
New Branches: epel7
Owners: rebus

Hello SCM team,
plase can you add epel7 branch for the nikto package?
Thank you
Michal Ambroz

Git done (by process-git-requests).

nikto-2.1.5-10.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nikto-2.1.5-10.el7

nikto-2.1.5-10.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.