This is an unofficial review.
Package Review
==============

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

ISSUES:
==============
  1.[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
%license section is absent, the License file is not installed.
  2.rspamd.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/bin/rspamd_stats /usr/bin/env perl
Please use /usr/bin/perl instead
  3.[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
Please check items under contrib directory.
  4.>License:          ASL 2.0
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License of this package is quite heterogenous, projects bundled in confrib directory and libcryptobox under src directory have different licenses. Licenses of other files are attached. Debian directory is also not used, please remove it in %prep section.
  5.>%{__cmake} \
>  -DCMAKE_C_OPT_FLAGS="%{optflags}" \
Macro %cmake maybe a more convenient way of doing some of this and supplies the missing ldflags and enables verbose output. Following is the one alternative I tried:
%cmake \
  -DCONFDIR=%{_sysconfdir}/rspamd \
  -DMANDIR=%{_mandir} \
  -DDBDIR=%{_localstatedir}/lib/rspamd \
  -DRUNDIR=%{_localstatedir}/run/rspamd \
  -DWANT_SYSTEMD_UNITS=ON \
  -DSYSTEMDDIR=%{_unitdir} \
  -DENABLE_LUAJIT=ON \
  -DENABLE_HIREDIS=ON \
  -DENABLE_FANN=ON \
  -DENABLE_HYPERSCAN=ON \
  -DHYPERSCAN_ROOT_DIR=/opt/hyperscan \
  -DLOGDIR=%{_localstatedir}/log/rspamd \
  -DPLUGINSDIR=%{_datadir}/rspamd \
  -DLIBDIR=%{_libdir}/rspamd/ \
  -DNO_SHARED=ON \
  -DDEBIAN_BUILD=1 \
  -DRSPAMD_GROUP=%{rspamd_group} \
  -DRSPAMD_USER=%{rspamd_user}
The package build successfully, but I didn't check whether it work correctly.
  6.>  -DRSPAMD_GROUP=%{rspamd_group} \
CMake Warning:
  Manually-specified variables were not used by the project:
    RSPAMD_GROUP
But in there is SET(RSPAMD_GROUP "nobody") in CMakeLists.txt, probably something went wrong.
  7.>%{?jobs:-j%jobs}
is not phrased by rpmbuild, a easier way is to use %{make_build} 
  8.>%{__make} install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
can be done by %{make_install}
  9.>getent group GROUPNAME >/dev/null || groupadd -r %{rspamd_group}
Do you mean getent group %{rspamd_group} >/dev/null || groupadd -r %{rspamd_group}' 
(adding the group if it does not exist)
  10.>getent passwd USERNAME >/dev/null || \
Do you mean getent passwd %{rspamd_user} >/dev/null || \
(adding the user if it does not exist)
  11.>#%systemd_post %{name}.service
>systemctl --no-reload preset %{name}.service >/dev/null 2>&1 || :
Do you really wan to set the service to preset state after each upgrade, which could override user set state?
  12.>%define rspamd_user       _rspamd
>%define rspamd_group      %{rspamd_user}
I don't know what selinux will do to them, please add a selinux policy package if necessary.
  13.>	cfg->ssl_ciphers = "HIGH:!aNULL:!kRSA:!PSK:!SRP:!MD5:!RC4"; at src/libserver/cfg_utils.c
>		if (cfg->ssl_ciphers) {
>	...
>				/* Default settings */
>				SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list (ctx->ssl_ctx, secure_ciphers);
rspamd.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/bin/rspamadm SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list
Fedora wish openssl application to use system-wide cryptographic protocols. Please refer https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:CryptoPolicies for details.
  14.>Provides: librspamd-actrie.so()(64bit)
aho-corasick in the contrib directory seems to be forked from else where, if librspamd-actrie.so is only used internally, please filter this provide; if not, please do not bundle it.
  15.[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/rspamd/lib
  16.[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
The source contain tests in tests directory, that should be built and executed in %check section.
  17.[!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
     Note: %define requiring justification: %define rspamd_user _rspamd,
     %define rspamd_group %{rspamd_user}, %define rspamd_home
     %{_localstatedir}/lib/rspamd, %define rspamd_logdir
     %{_localstatedir}/log/rspamd, %define rspamd_confdir
     %{_sysconfdir}/rspamd, %define rspamd_pluginsdir %{_datadir}/rspamd,
     %define rspamd_rulesdir %{_datadir}/rspamd/rules, %define
     rspamd_wwwdir %{_datadir}/rspamd/www
  18.>%{__install} 
"Macro forms of system executables SHOULD NOT be used except when there is a need to allow the location of those executables to be configurable. For example, rm should be used in preference to %{__rm}." Please refer to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Macros
===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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]: 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Apache (v2.0)", "bsd_1_clause", "LGPL", "Unknown or
     generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL", "ISC", "*No copyright* MPL
     (v2.0)", "Apache (v2.0) BSD (2 clause)", "BSD (unspecified)", "LGPL
     (v2 or later)", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "LGPL (v2.1 or
     later)", "GPL (v3)", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 546 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/lu/1494914-rspamd/review-rspamd/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/share/rspamd/lib
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/rspamd/lib,
     /usr/lib/systemd/system-preset
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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.
[!]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
     Note: Package contains font files, necessary for the interface.
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rspamd-
     debuginfo
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[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.
[!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
     Note: %define requiring justification: %define rspamd_user _rspamd,
     %define rspamd_group %{rspamd_user}, %define rspamd_home
     %{_localstatedir}/lib/rspamd, %define rspamd_logdir
     %{_localstatedir}/log/rspamd, %define rspamd_confdir
     %{_sysconfdir}/rspamd, %define rspamd_pluginsdir %{_datadir}/rspamd,
     %define rspamd_rulesdir %{_datadir}/rspamd/rules, %define
     rspamd_wwwdir %{_datadir}/rspamd/www
[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.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
     Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1822720 bytes in /usr/share
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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: rspamd-1.6.4-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm
          rspamd-debuginfo-1.6.4-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm
          rspamd-1.6.4-1.fc26.src.rpm
rspamd.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/bin/rspamadm SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list
rspamd.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/bin/rspamc SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list
rspamd.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/bin/rspamd SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list
rspamd.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/bin/rspamd_stats /usr/bin/env perl
rspamd.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/rspamd _rspamd
rspamd.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/rspamd _rspamd
rspamd.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rspamd_stats
rspamd.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post chown
rspamd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lua -> la, luau, lea
rspamd.src:85: W: macro-in-comment %systemd_post
rspamd.src:85: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 10 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: rspamd-debuginfo-1.6.4-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
rspamd.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://rspamd.com/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
rspamd.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/bin/rspamadm SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list
rspamd.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/bin/rspamc SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list
rspamd.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/bin/rspamd SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list
rspamd.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/bin/rspamd_stats /usr/bin/env perl
rspamd.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/rspamd _rspamd
rspamd.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/rspamd _rspamd
rspamd.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rspamd_stats
rspamd.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post chown
rspamd-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://rspamd.com/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 9 warnings.



Requires
--------
rspamd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    /usr/bin/env
    config(rspamd)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcrypto.so.1.1()(64bit)
    libcrypto.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0)(64bit)
    libdl.so.2()(64bit)
    libevent-2.0.so.5()(64bit)
    libfann.so.2()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgthread-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libhs.so.4()(64bit)
    libicudata.so.57()(64bit)
    libicui18n.so.57()(64bit)
    libicuuc.so.57()(64bit)
    libluajit-5.1.so.2()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libmagic.so.1()(64bit)
    libnsl.so.1()(64bit)
    libpcre.so.1()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    libresolv.so.2()(64bit)
    librspamd-actrie.so()(64bit)
    librt.so.1()(64bit)
    libsqlite3.so.0()(64bit)
    libssl.so.1.1()(64bit)
    libssl.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    logrotate
    rtld(GNU_HASH)
    shadow-utils
    systemd

rspamd-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
rspamd:
    config(rspamd)
    librspamd-actrie.so()(64bit)
    rspamd
    rspamd(x86-64)

rspamd-debuginfo:
    rspamd-debuginfo
    rspamd-debuginfo(x86-64)



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
rspamd: /usr/lib64/rspamd/librspamd-actrie.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/vstakhov/rspamd/archive/1.6.4.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 70560ffe308e25086ff9c56d8ba40e759652693b4e94fcc10f808620928d510f
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 70560ffe308e25086ff9c56d8ba40e759652693b4e94fcc10f808620928d510f


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n rspamd -v -L /home/lu/u7j7j76ju
Buildroot used: fedora-26-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

Built with local dependencies:
    /home/lu/u7j7j76ju/ragel-compat-6.10-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm
    
    
LICENSES
=================


Apache (v2.0) BSD (2 clause)
----------------------------
rspamd-1.6.4/CONTRIBUTIONS.md
rspamd-1.6.4/src/libserver/url.c
rspamd-1.6.4/src/libutil/printf.c

BSD (2 clause)
--------------
rspamd-1.6.4/test/functional/lua/flags.lua
rspamd-1.6.4/test/lua/unit/folding.lua
rspamd-1.6.4/test/lua/unit/rfc2047.lua

BSD (3 clause)
--------------
rspamd-1.6.4/compat/queue.h

GPL
---
rspamd-1.6.4/interface/js/lib/footable.min.js


MIT/X11 (BSD like)
------------------
rspamd-1.6.4/doc/doxydown/LICENSE
rspamd-1.6.4/interface/css/rspamd.css
rspamd-1.6.4/interface/js/app/config.js
rspamd-1.6.4/interface/js/app/graph.js
rspamd-1.6.4/interface/js/app/history.js
rspamd-1.6.4/interface/js/app/rspamd.js
rspamd-1.6.4/interface/js/app/stats.js
rspamd-1.6.4/interface/js/app/symbols.js
rspamd-1.6.4/interface/js/app/upload.js
rspamd-1.6.4/test/lua/telescope.lua

Ye Cheng, thank you for the review and apologies for not responding earlier!

I have begun working through the mentioned issues in the GitHub repo, but it'll likely be a while til I find time to complete them.

*** Bug 1023690 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

I think you can replace useradd to the same way I do in mydns, 
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mydns/tree/master

Hey Itamar,
I have already prepped for using sysusersd here: https://github.com/LorbusChris/rspamd-rpm/blob/master/rspamd.spec

However, I believe using it is not possible, yet, as there are files that need to be owned by the rspamd user. I will start using sysusersd once we have a rpm spec macro to facilitate that.

Thank you for you message, though :)

%pre
%sysusers_create_inline '%(cat %{SOURCE3})'

and source3 contains

u rspamd - "rspamd user"

Thanks! This is being discussed on the devel list atm. I will push these changes once it makes it into the guidelines :)

https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/AFH7W6XKQ6XQATQYSOGVIW5UXR6YOIRP/

Any news on this?

v1.9.4 is on COPR now. This still can't go into Fedora properly, as some dependencies have yet to be unbundled. not a priority for me right now, but PRs are always welcome at https://github.com/LorbusChris/rspamd-rpm

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.

This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script.

The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month.
As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.