Bug 1409241 (ufw) - Review Request: ufw - Uncomplicated Firewall
Summary: Review Request: ufw - Uncomplicated Firewall
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: ufw
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Neal Gompa
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2016-12-30 15:58 UTC by Kevin Kofler
Modified: 2017-01-12 06:49 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2017-01-12 05:23:26 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
ngompa13: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Kevin Kofler 2016-12-30 15:58:55 UTC
Spec URL: https://svn.calcforge.org/viewvc/kannolo/trunk/packages/ufw/ufw.spec?revision=204&view=co
SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/kkofler/kannolo/fedora-26-x86_64/00471871-ufw/ufw-0.35-4.fc26.src.rpm
Description:
The Uncomplicated Firewall(ufw) is a front-end for netfilter, which
aims to make it easier for people unfamiliar with firewall concepts.
Ufw provides a framework for managing netfilter as well as
manipulating the firewall.

Fedora Account System Username: kkofler

Comment 1 Neal Gompa 2016-12-30 16:01:13 UTC
Taking this review.

Comment 2 Neal Gompa 2016-12-30 16:03:59 UTC
fedora-review cannot process the spec URL you've given me. While I'm using fedora-review in srpm only mode, please, in the future, publish spec files in a way that fedora-review can process them.

Comment 3 Neal Gompa 2016-12-30 16:09:29 UTC
Some initial notes:

* Could you please use the official sources from the Launchpad project? It appears to be available at: https://launchpad.net/ufw/0.35/0.35/+download/ufw-0.35.tar.gz

* In the %prep phase, you're deleting profiles. Why?

* In your %build and %install phases, please use %py3_build and %py3_install instead of calling them directly.

Comment 4 Kevin Kofler 2016-12-30 16:40:30 UTC
> * Could you please use the official sources from the Launchpad project? It 
> appears to be available at:
> https://launchpad.net/ufw/0.35/0.35/+download/ufw-0.35.tar.gz

I'll fix that. (I hope it is really the same source…) The use of the Ubuntu package's .orig.tar.gz is a leftover from the times of the 0.34 prereleases, where the Ubuntu packages had various prereleases of 0.34 cut directly from the upstream SCM. There were months between the upstream 0.33 and 0.34 releases and the 0.34 prereleases were the only ones supporting Python 3 at the time.

> * In the %prep phase, you're deleting profiles. Why?

I am deleting the backups left by the %patchN -b .foo invocations because the broken build system installs them if I don't do that.

I am not just leaving off the -b .foo because then I sometimes get .orig backups. (The %patchN macros do not understand "--no-backup-if-mismatch".)

> * In your %build and %install phases, please use %py3_build and %py3_install 
> instead of calling them directly.

Ah? I'll fix that, too.

I'll be uploading a fixed specfile ASAP.

Comment 5 Kevin Kofler 2016-12-30 17:17:10 UTC
Spec URL: https://svn.calcforge.org/viewvc/kannolo/trunk/packages/ufw/ufw.spec?revision=258&view=co
SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/kkofler/kannolo/fedora-25-x86_64/00493862-ufw/ufw-0.35-5.fc25.src.rpm

* Fri Dec 30 2016 Kevin Kofler <Kevin.org> 0.35-5
- Change URL to https
- Get the tarball directly from upstream rather than from Ubuntu
- Remove redundant "-n %%{name}-%%{version}" from %%setup
- Use %%py3_build and %%py3_install macros
- Add Python 3.6 to check-requirements

Comment 6 Neal Gompa 2016-12-30 17:28:07 UTC
fedora-review picked up some concerning things:

ufw.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/ufw/after.init 640
ufw.noarch: E: non-executable-script /etc/ufw/after.init 640 /bin/sh 
ufw.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/ufw/after.rules 640
ufw.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/ufw/after6.rules 640
ufw.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/ufw/before.init 640
ufw.noarch: E: non-executable-script /etc/ufw/before.init 640 /bin/sh 
ufw.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/ufw/before.rules 640
ufw.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/ufw/before6.rules 640

ufw.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/sbin/ufw /usr/bin/env /usr/bin/python3
ufw.noarch: E: non-readable /usr/share/ufw/iptables/after.rules 640
ufw.noarch: E: non-readable /usr/share/ufw/iptables/after6.rules 640
ufw.noarch: E: non-readable /usr/share/ufw/iptables/before.rules 640
ufw.noarch: E: non-readable /usr/share/ufw/iptables/before6.rules 640
ufw.noarch: E: non-readable /usr/share/ufw/iptables/user.rules 640
ufw.noarch: E: non-readable /usr/share/ufw/iptables/user6.rules 640
ufw.noarch: E: non-readable /var/lib/ufw/user.rules 640
ufw.noarch: E: non-readable /var/lib/ufw/user6.rules 640


Could you please try to fix these?

Comment 7 Kevin Kofler 2016-12-30 20:41:25 UTC
Spec URL: https://svn.calcforge.org/viewvc/kannolo/trunk/packages/ufw/ufw.spec?revision=259&view=co
SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/kkofler/kannolo/fedora-26-x86_64/00493938-ufw/ufw-0.35-6.fc26.src.rpm

* Fri Dec 30 2016 Kevin Kofler <Kevin.org> 0.35-6
- Change permissions of the *.rules files from 0640 to 0644
- Change permissions of the before.init and after.init hooks from 0640 to 0755
- Don't prepend /usr/bin/env to sys.executable, which is always an absolute path

Comment 8 Neal Gompa 2016-12-30 20:48:32 UTC
Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated



===== 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: "GPL (v3)", "Unknown or generated". 179 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/makerpm/ufw/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages,
     /usr/lib/python3.6
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.6/site-
     packages, /etc/default, /usr/lib/python3.6
[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]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[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.
[x]: 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 40960 bytes in 4 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 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:
[x]: 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.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[x]: 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]: 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:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: ufw-0.35-6.fc26.noarch.rpm
          ufw-0.35-6.fc26.src.rpm
ufw.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US netfilter -> net filter, net-filter, filterer
ufw.noarch: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/ufw/after.init
ufw.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/ufw/__pycache__/backend.cpython-36.opt-1.pyc expected 3361 (3.6), found 3379 (unknown)
ufw.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/ufw/__pycache__/frontend.cpython-36.opt-1.pyc expected 3361 (3.6), found 3379 (unknown)
ufw.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/ufw/__pycache__/common.cpython-36.pyc expected 3361 (3.6), found 3379 (unknown)
ufw.noarch: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/ufw/before.init
ufw.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/ufw/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-36.opt-1.pyc expected 3361 (3.6), found 3379 (unknown)
ufw.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/ufw/__pycache__/parser.cpython-36.pyc expected 3361 (3.6), found 3379 (unknown)
ufw.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/ufw/__pycache__/util.cpython-36.pyc expected 3361 (3.6), found 3379 (unknown)
ufw.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/ufw/__pycache__/util.cpython-36.opt-1.pyc expected 3361 (3.6), found 3379 (unknown)
ufw.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/ufw/__pycache__/backend.cpython-36.pyc expected 3361 (3.6), found 3379 (unknown)
ufw.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/ufw/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-36.pyc expected 3361 (3.6), found 3379 (unknown)
ufw.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/ufw/__pycache__/backend_iptables.cpython-36.pyc expected 3361 (3.6), found 3379 (unknown)
ufw.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/ufw/__pycache__/common.cpython-36.opt-1.pyc expected 3361 (3.6), found 3379 (unknown)
ufw.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/ufw/__pycache__/parser.cpython-36.opt-1.pyc expected 3361 (3.6), found 3379 (unknown)
ufw.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/ufw/__pycache__/frontend.cpython-36.pyc expected 3361 (3.6), found 3379 (unknown)
ufw.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/ufw/__pycache__/backend_iptables.cpython-36.opt-1.pyc expected 3361 (3.6), found 3379 (unknown)
ufw.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/ufw/__pycache__/applications.cpython-36.opt-1.pyc expected 3361 (3.6), found 3379 (unknown)
ufw.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/ufw/__pycache__/applications.cpython-36.pyc expected 3361 (3.6), found 3379 (unknown)
ufw.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US netfilter -> net filter, net-filter, filterer
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 18 errors, 2 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
ufw.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US netfilter -> net filter, net-filter, filterer
ufw.noarch: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/ufw/after.init
ufw.noarch: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/ufw/before.init
ufw.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/ufw/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-36.opt-1.pyc expected 3361 (3.6), found 3379 (unknown)
ufw.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/ufw/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-36.pyc expected 3361 (3.6), found 3379 (unknown)
ufw.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/ufw/__pycache__/applications.cpython-36.opt-1.pyc expected 3361 (3.6), found 3379 (unknown)
ufw.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/ufw/__pycache__/applications.cpython-36.pyc expected 3361 (3.6), found 3379 (unknown)
ufw.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/ufw/__pycache__/backend.cpython-36.opt-1.pyc expected 3361 (3.6), found 3379 (unknown)
ufw.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/ufw/__pycache__/backend.cpython-36.pyc expected 3361 (3.6), found 3379 (unknown)
ufw.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/ufw/__pycache__/backend_iptables.cpython-36.opt-1.pyc expected 3361 (3.6), found 3379 (unknown)
ufw.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/ufw/__pycache__/backend_iptables.cpython-36.pyc expected 3361 (3.6), found 3379 (unknown)
ufw.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/ufw/__pycache__/common.cpython-36.opt-1.pyc expected 3361 (3.6), found 3379 (unknown)
ufw.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/ufw/__pycache__/common.cpython-36.pyc expected 3361 (3.6), found 3379 (unknown)
ufw.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/ufw/__pycache__/frontend.cpython-36.opt-1.pyc expected 3361 (3.6), found 3379 (unknown)
ufw.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/ufw/__pycache__/frontend.cpython-36.pyc expected 3361 (3.6), found 3379 (unknown)
ufw.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/ufw/__pycache__/parser.cpython-36.opt-1.pyc expected 3361 (3.6), found 3379 (unknown)
ufw.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/ufw/__pycache__/parser.cpython-36.pyc expected 3361 (3.6), found 3379 (unknown)
ufw.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/ufw/__pycache__/util.cpython-36.opt-1.pyc expected 3361 (3.6), found 3379 (unknown)
ufw.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/ufw/__pycache__/util.cpython-36.pyc expected 3361 (3.6), found 3379 (unknown)
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 18 errors, 1 warnings.



Requires
--------
ufw (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    /usr/bin/python3
    config(ufw)
    iptables
    python(abi)
    systemd



Provides
--------
ufw:
    config(ufw)
    python3.6dist(ufw)
    python3dist(ufw)
    ufw



Source checksums
----------------
https://launchpad.net/ufw/0.35/0.35/+download/ufw-0.35.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 662f865bc83bf8aa1a40a6fe578bc2ce796ff60a1be2c1103def7db1b91f8509
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 662f865bc83bf8aa1a40a6fe578bc2ce796ff60a1be2c1103def7db1b91f8509


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1409241 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -r
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

Comment 9 Neal Gompa 2016-12-30 20:51:39 UTC
The python bytecode wrong magic value thing is a bug in rpmlint that was just fixed today, so it hasn't propagated out as an update yet. This will be fixed.

The executables marked as config files are on purpose, as they are user-modifiable, but must be executable for ufw to utilize them, and thus are valid.

The spelling error isn't a spelling error.

Everything looks good to me.

PACKAGE APPROVED.

Comment 10 Kevin Kofler 2016-12-30 21:01:30 UTC
Thanks! Package creation requested in pkgdb.

Comment 11 Kevin Fenzi 2017-01-02 20:35:02 UTC
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/ufw

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2017-01-03 03:31:26 UTC
ufw-0.35-7.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-fcf1e0af21

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2017-01-03 03:32:51 UTC
ufw-0.35-7.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-3d78690ce9

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2017-01-03 22:20:56 UTC
ufw-0.35-7.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-fcf1e0af21

Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2017-01-03 23:50:30 UTC
ufw-0.35-7.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-3d78690ce9

Comment 16 Fedora Update System 2017-01-12 05:23:26 UTC
ufw-0.35-7.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 17 Fedora Update System 2017-01-12 06:49:10 UTC
ufw-0.35-7.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.


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