Spec URL: http://www.zarb.org/~misc/tmp/bandit.spec SRPM URL: http://www.zarb.org/~misc/tmp/bandit-0.10.1-1.el7.src.rpm Description: Bandit provides a framework for performing security analysis of Python source code, utilizing the ast module from the Python standard library. The ast module is used to convert source code into a parsed tree of Python syntax nodes. Bandit allows users to define custom tests that are performed against those nodes. At the completion of testing, a report is generated that lists security issues identified within the target source code. Fedora Account System Username: misc
Scratch build : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9620594
For F22 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9620865 For Rawhide http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9620861
Please update to the latest version. No issues otherwise. ===== 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 41 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/1217857-bandit/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. [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 71680 bytes in 46 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [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]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. 0.11.0 seems to be out. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: 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: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: bandit-0.10.1-1.fc23.noarch.rpm bandit-0.10.1-1.fc23.src.rpm bandit.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ast -> sat, as, at bandit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bandit bandit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ast -> sat, as, at 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- bandit.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ast -> sat, as, at bandit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bandit 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /var/tmp/1217857-bandit/srpm/bandit.spec 2015-05-09 13:15:38.183298568 -0400 +++ /var/tmp/1217857-bandit/srpm-unpacked/bandit.spec 2015-05-01 17:07:08.000000000 -0400 @@ -20,5 +20,4 @@ against those nodes. At the completion of testing, a report is generated that lists security issues identified within the target source code. - %prep %setup -q Requires -------- bandit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python2 PyYAML config(bandit) python(abi) Provides -------- bandit: bandit config(bandit) Source checksums ---------------- http://tarballs.openstack.org/bandit/bandit-0.10.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9ebb849e0c4b9ed09ce7e0fd3fef4db47f5dd79887b4b87f25013780f6a65626 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9ebb849e0c4b9ed09ce7e0fd3fef4db47f5dd79887b4b87f25013780f6a65626 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.3 (bcf15e3) last change: 2015-05-04 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1217857 -m fedora-rawhide-i386 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Ok, will do the upgrade on import.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: bandit Short Description: Framework for performing security analysis of Python source Upstream URL: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Security/Projects/Bandit Owners: misc Branches: f22 epel7 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
It seems it didn't run, so following Kevin advice, I am asking again.
Nope, still not working :/
?
See https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6177
I don't see it even in pkgdb. Resetting fedora-cvs so I can try and add it again...
Looks like it worked fine that time. ;)
bandit-0.11.0-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bandit-0.11.0-1.el7
bandit-0.11.0-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bandit-0.11.0-1.fc22
bandit-0.11.0-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository.
*** Bug 1251985 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
* This should be renamed to python-bandit https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.28python_modules.29 * Please update to the current latest release https://pypi.python.org/pypi/bandit/0.13.2 - version bump is coming to OpenStack global requirements https://review.openstack.org/210787 * Source0 should use pypi URL instead of tarballs.o.o %global pypi_name bandit Name: python-%{pypi_name} Version: 0.13.2 ... Source0: https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/b/%{pypi_name}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}.tar.gz
(In reply to Alan Pevec from comment #20) > * This should be renamed to python-bandit > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_. > 28python_modules.29 This is an application (/usr/bin/bandit), so it doesn't need to have python- in the name. > * Please update to the current latest release > https://pypi.python.org/pypi/bandit/0.13.2 - version bump is coming to > OpenStack global requirements https://review.openstack.org/210787 That's a valid point. > * Source0 should use pypi URL instead of tarballs.o.o There is no requirement like this.
> > * Source0 should use pypi URL instead of tarballs.o.o > There is no requirement like this. For OpenStack projects I'd prefer pypi vs tarballs.o.o source URLs: 1. https vs http - https://tarballs.openstack.org/ has an invalid cert (other vhost in .openstack.org and it's not priority for upstream Infra) 2. no checksum
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_. > > 28python_modules.29 > This is an application (/usr/bin/bandit), so it doesn't need to have python- > in the name. I don't see that in naming guidelines, there are other python-* packages providing both binaries and python module, but yeah I guess renaming is not worth the effort at this point. It might be just nice to add Provides: python-bandit to avoid yet another special case in https://github.com/redhat-openstack/pymod2pkg/
Or put python module code into subpackage python-bandit ?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Python_Version_Support AFAICT python3- and python2- are now mandatory and python-<module> is a virtual provide
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.28General.29 > If a new package is considered an "addon" package that enhances or adds a new functionality to an existing Fedora package without being useful on its own, its name should reflect this fact. ... and by implication, if a package is useful on its own, it is not an addon, it doesn't need the python- prefix. There are various packages which follow this scheme (calibre, fpaste, all fedora-package utilities, etc, etc), and there are also counter-examples (python-bugzilla, python-boto, etc, etc). (In reply to Alan Pevec from comment #25) > AFAICT python3- and python2- are now mandatory and python-<module> is a > virtual provide I don't know whether the bandit module is supposed to be importable in python by itself. If yes, then Provides:python-bandit and Provides:python2-bandit should be added.
Any module is importable. But unless someone show me that there is a public API ( with something like a vague promise of stability, and:or a api doc, or even just examples or package outside of bandit itself using it as a module ), this is not a module. And I pushed the new version to rawhide, not sure for F22 due to bodhi update, and the CLI do not work for now.
bandit-0.11.0-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.