Hi,

I fixed my spec with macros and now is ready to pass. 

[fotis@fotis SPECS] $ rpmlint -v -i netspy2ban.spec 
netspy2ban.spec: I: checking
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Please let me know if I have missed something

Fedora Account System Username?

Your links can not be used with wget, correct links (for raw data) are:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ftsiadimos/netspy2ban/master/rpms/netspy2ban-1.0-1.fc22.src.rpm
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ftsiadimos/netspy2ban/master/rpms/netspy2ban.spec

This is a snippet of fedora-review running on your source-rpm with rawhide as target configuration:

Issues:
=======
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
  in the spec URL.
  Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in
  /home/jens/netspy2ban/diff.txt
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL

[...]

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: netspy2ban-1.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
          netspy2ban-1.0-1.fc24.src.rpm
netspy2ban.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/netspy2ban.1.gz
netspy2ban.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary netspy2start
netspy2ban.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%postun rm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
netspy2ban.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/netspy2ban.1.gz
netspy2ban.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary netspy2start
netspy2ban.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%postun rm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.



Are your links uptodate ?

Hello Jens,

Thank you for your feedback. I replace the link and now this issue is fixed, please let me know if I need to fix something else 


Source checksums
----------------
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ftsiadimos/netspy2ban/master/rpms/netspy2ban-1.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : f61a1ed73374b0def1302097ce9a51187faee5d549fd057a86d04b25e97875c4
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f61a1ed73374b0def1302097ce9a51187faee5d549fd057a86d04b25e97875c4

Informal review:

I do not use python myself, so I'm not familiar to it.

Did you read:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python ?
If I understand correctly you should not use the generic ${python} (etc.) macros, but the specific ${python2} (etc.) version, to be sure the package works, if the default switches from python2 to 3.

Besides the python-specific stuff:
Don't use rm -rf %{buildroot} at the beginning of %install
Install the man-page with "-m 644" parameter to avoid setting the executable-bit
Remove the %clean-section
defattr in %files only needed for rpm < 4.4 (even RedHat/CentOS 5 has 4.4.x)

Your license-file is unclear about the correct license, it mentions GPLv2+ and GPL3+, the spec-file says You use GPLv2+.

In the sources you only write about GPL without any version.

Please check: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing

Please test your package also with fedora-review -b 1245255 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 (see the man-page of fedora-review for the -m parameters if you want to test different mock-configurations).

This is just an informal review, I'm not a fedora-packager, "just" a contributor looking for a review (and a sponsor) myself.

Thank you a lot for your help!

I removed defattr, %clean-section, rm -rf %{buildroot}.

I fixed my GPL license to be GPLv3 and I added "-m 644" for my man page

In the requires I added the python2 but I will not change the macros to python2 because I want to keep the noarch flag. The python2 macro is not working with the noarch flag.

Some issues I found:

1. Do not autostart and autoenble the fail2ban service, we can not do this:

%post
systemctl start fail2ban
systemctl enable fail2ban

See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd#Why_don.27t_we....

2. Missing appdata.xml info, see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AppData

3.I see you are the upstream developer, can you provide a setup.py file? This way the spec will be cleaner and you can simple use the py2_build and py2_install macros.

4. Your rpm ship a icon you MUST include:

%post
/bin/touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null || :

%postun
if [ $1 -eq 0 ] ; then
    /bin/touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null
    /usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null || :
fi

%posttrans
/usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null || :

5. You need to include this to handle the unit file:

%{?systemd_requires}
BuildRequires: systemd

[...]
%post
%systemd_post apache-httpd.service

%preun
%systemd_preun apache-httpd.service

%postun
%systemd_postun_with_restart apache-httpd.service


6. Include a %check seption, in this section you should validate the desktop file and the appdata.xml file.

7. Do not gzip the man page, rpm will gzip it for you, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Manpages

This is a informal review, I see than you need a sponsor I can take your review request if you agree to do some informals review.

OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK: Package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
OK: The License field in the spec must match the actual license.
OK: License(s) for the package must be included in %license.
OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
OK: The package must contain code, or permissible content.
OK: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime.
OK: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
OK: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop

Also please consider suporting python3 and package the app with python3 so Fedora will use python3 by default and there will no a python2 enviroment by default.

Hi William:

I'll fix the issues you mentioned above. And definitely - please review my program and I can also review someone's program informally. Thanks for your help.

Fotis

Any update here?

3 months without answer, closing ad DEADREVIEW