Bug 1185662 - Review Request: shadowd - Shadow Daemon web application firewall server
Summary: Review Request: shadowd - Shadow Daemon web application firewall server
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: FE-DEADREVIEW
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2015-01-25 16:26 UTC by Hendrik Buchwald
Modified: 2021-07-31 16:52 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2021-07-29 13:17:03 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Hendrik Buchwald 2015-01-25 16:26:00 UTC
Spec URL: https://shadowd.zecure.org/files/redhat/shadowd.spec
SRPM URL: https://shadowd.zecure.org/files/redhat/shadowd-1.0.0-1.fc21.src.rpm
Description: Shadow Daemon is a collection of tools to detect, protocol and prevent attacks on web applications. Technically speaking, Shadow Daemon is a web application firewall that intercepts requests and filters out malicious parameters. It is a modular system that separates web application, analysis and interface to increase security, flexibility and expandability. This component is the background server that handles the analysis and storage of requests.
Fedora Account System Username: zithb

This is my first package and I need a sponsor. I am also the upstream maintainer of the project.

A Koji report can be found here: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8719873

Thanks in advance!

Comment 1 Pranav Kant 2015-02-02 12:57:13 UTC
This is an unofficial review.

Skimming through the spec file and a quick review made me point out following problems. Please have a look at points below.

- You should either macro style (%{buildroot}) or variable style ($RPM_BUILD_ROOT) consistently throughout the spec file. Mixing both of these is bad from usability point of view. Please use one style throughout the spec file.

See : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS

- defattr is not needed for rpm >=4.4.
See : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions

- rpmlint output :

Checking: shadowd-1.0.0-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm
          shadowd-1.0.0-1.fc21.src.rpm
shadowd.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libdbi-dbd-mysql
shadowd.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libdbi-dbd-pgsql
shadowd.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US expandability -> expand ability, expand-ability, dependability
shadowd.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /etc/shadowd/shadowd.ini shadowd
shadowd.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/shadowd/shadowd.ini 0640L
shadowd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US expandability -> expand ability, expand-ability, dependability
shadowd.src: W: strange-permission shadowd.spec 0666L
shadowd.src: W: strange-permission shadowd.service 0666L
shadowd.src: W: strange-permission shadowd-1.0.0.tar.gz 0666L
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 6 warnings.

Comment 2 Hendrik Buchwald 2015-02-02 14:37:23 UTC
Okay, I updated it.

Some of the rpmlint output will remain:
* libdbi-dbd-mysql and libdbi-dbd-pgsql are runtime dependencies that are not detected automatically
* expandability is not in this dictionary, but it is not an uncommon word either
* the permissions and owner of shadowd.ini are security requirements

Comment 3 Pranav Kant 2015-02-02 19:47:41 UTC
Also it would be better to have each BR in a separate line. That is easier to review in git when there is a change.

Comment 4 Pranav Kant 2015-02-02 19:48:57 UTC
Also, please increase the release next time you adjust the SPEC, it makes it easier to compare SRPMS.

Comment 5 Package Review 2020-07-10 00:51:15 UTC
This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry
it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software
into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the
NEEDINFO flag.

You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version
available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase
chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you
need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned
and will be closed.
Thank you for your patience.

Comment 6 Didik Supriadi 2021-07-27 04:36:42 UTC
Hi @hb,
Do you still want this package to be reviewed?

Comment 7 Hendrik Buchwald 2021-07-29 12:04:08 UTC
(In reply to Didik Supriadi from comment #6)
> Hi @hb,
> Do you still want this package to be reviewed?

Hi Didik,

thanks, it is not necessary anymore. I have stopped providing Red Hat packages and now distribute it as a Docker image only.


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