Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python-dodgy.spec SRPM URL: https://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python-dodgy-0.1.9-1.el7.src.rpm Description: Dodgy is a very basic tool to run against your codebase to search for "dodgy" looking values. It is a series of simple regular expressions designed to detect things such as accidental SCM diff checkins, or passwords or secret keys hard coded into files. While this is primarily aimed at open source projects (for whom a publicly available secret key is pretty dangerous), it can also be used in private projects, with the caveat that it will point out things which are not a problem for private projects and is not configurable enough currently to change that. Another note - this tool is probably best run pre-commit, since it will hopefully prevent dodgy things being checked in. Fedora Account System Username: orion https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=18309627
I will do a review of your package, but the review will not be official, as I am not sponsored yet.
I'm working on sponsoring Richard and I asked him to do some non official reviews.
I went through the spec and build and have noticed several things, that should be addressed. I have reported one issue and one comment in upstream at GitHub repo: * If I execute dodgy in root (eg. dir without python files) I got an exception: https://github.com/landscapeio/dodgy/issues/10 * Package does not have any --help or another method to help user understand, how to use it: https://github.com/landscapeio/dodgy/issues/5 This is not related to packaging, but I think problems mentioned above should be addressed before it is released as a Fedora package. My other question is if the package is still under active development as GitHub repo has not been updated about a year and a half. Regarding packaging issues, I think rpmlint (spelling errors) warnings should be fixed, as it is super easy to do so. There are executable scripts in bin for both python2 and python3. According to packaging guidelines executables provide the same functionality independent of whether they are run on top of Python 2 or Python 3, then only the Python 3 version of the executable should be packaged. And it seems this is the case for this package as well. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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 20480 bytes in 2 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]: 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]: 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. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python Note: see comment about executable scripts at the top. [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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2-dodgy , python3-dodgy [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: 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). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python2-dodgy-0.1.9-1.fc26.noarch.rpm python3-dodgy-0.1.9-1.fc26.noarch.rpm python-dodgy-0.1.9-1.fc26.src.rpm python2-dodgy.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codebase -> co debase, co-debase, code base python2-dodgy.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checkins -> chickens, checking, check ins python2-dodgy.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee python2-dodgy.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dodgy python3-dodgy.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codebase -> co debase, co-debase, code base python3-dodgy.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checkins -> chickens, checking, check ins python3-dodgy.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee python3-dodgy.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dodgy-3.6 python-dodgy.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codebase -> co debase, co-debase, code base python-dodgy.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checkins -> chickens, checking, check ins python-dodgy.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python2-dodgy.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codebase -> co debase, co-debase, code base python2-dodgy.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checkins -> chickens, checking, check ins python2-dodgy.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee python2-dodgy.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dodgy python3-dodgy.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codebase -> co debase, co-debase, code base python3-dodgy.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checkins -> chickens, checking, check ins python3-dodgy.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee python3-dodgy.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dodgy-3.6 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Requires -------- python2-dodgy (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python2 python(abi) python3-dodgy (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) Provides -------- python2-dodgy: python-dodgy python2-dodgy python2.7dist(dodgy) python2dist(dodgy) python3-dodgy: python3-dodgy python3.6dist(dodgy) python3dist(dodgy) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/landscapeio/dodgy/archive/0.1.9/python-dodgy-0.1.9.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ff0c6be663ffd27097b642a3cb13ab755e68c31a4cc8f9f8e4ea205e02481d6f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ff0c6be663ffd27097b642a3cb13ab755e68c31a4cc8f9f8e4ea205e02481d6f
(In reply to Richard Kellner from comment #3) > Regarding packaging issues, I think rpmlint (spelling errors) warnings > should be fixed, as it is super easy to do so. I find those spelling errors not really errors, but rather the spellchecker too dumb.
Also, Orion, could you please BuildRequire python2-* where applicable? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Dependencies BuildRequires: python2-setuptools BuildRequires: python2-pytest You use %{python3_pkgversion}, so i guess you intend to use this on EPEL as well, so maybe conditionalize it if necessary.
I've juts sponsored Richard.
Spec URL: https://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python-dodgy.spec SRPM URL: https://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python-dodgy-0.1.9-2.el7.src.rpm * Mon Dec 4 2017 Orion Poplawski <orion.com> - 0.1.9-2 - Only ship one version of dodgy binary - Use python2- BRs where possible Although I'm fine with dropping this since it appears that this might not be real dependency of anything like I thought it was.
(In reply to Orion Poplawski from comment #7) > Although I'm fine with dropping this since it appears that this might not be > real dependency of anything like I thought it was. Dodgy upstream: * "This is a very early version with minimal functionality right now, but will be improved over time." (README) * last commit 2 years ago * Looking at the code, it literally just checks if certain strings are in your code, such as "password", "secret", "<<<<<<<", "ssh_rsa_private_key". I don't think packaging this would bring Fedora much benefit.