Spec URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/macromilter.spec SRPM URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/macromilter-3.3-1.20171009git.src.rpm Description: Python based milter for Sendmail and Postfix MTA servers to check incoming e-mails for Microsoft Office attachments. If a Microsoft Office document is attached to the e-mail, it will be scanned for suspicious VBA macro code. Files with malicious macros are, depending on configuration, either removed and replaced by harmless text files or alternatively the whole e-mail will be rejected. Fedora Account System Username: robert In case a reviewer insists to change the package notation to MacroMilter, I am fine with it, as long as paths inside package are lowercase; latter is also upstream's intention. Not sure if it's a good idea to have it not consistent; maybe reviewer has an opinion?
Hello, - For a dev snapshot, add the shortcommit to the Release field too: Release: 1.20171009git%{shortcommit}%{?dist} And: * Mon Oct 09 2017 Robert Scheck <robert> 3.3-1.20171009git4e8295f - Package rame and SPEC name should be kept lowercase imho. Package is good otherwise, it is accepted. 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 37 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/macromilter/review- macromilter/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /etc/logrotate.d(samba- common, logrotate, ppp, sssd-common) [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. [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 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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 ===== 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). [?]: 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. [-]: 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). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: macromilter-3.3-1.20171009git.fc28.noarch.rpm macromilter-3.3-1.20171009git.fc28.src.rpm macromilter.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Milter -> Mister, Miller, Filter macromilter.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US milter -> molter, miler, miter macromilter.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/macromilter macromilter macromilter.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/macromilter macromilter macromilter.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/macromilter 750 macromilter.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/log/macromilter macromilter macromilter.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/log/macromilter macromilter macromilter.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/log/macromilter 750 macromilter.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary macromilter macromilter.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Milter -> Mister, Miller, Filter macromilter.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US milter -> molter, miler, miter macromilter.src:51: W: macro-in-comment %{_bindir} macromilter.src:51: W: macro-in-comment %{_bindir} macromilter.src:51: W: macro-in-comment %{name} 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 12 warnings.
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/macromilter
Robert-André, thank you very much for the review!
macromilter-3.3-1.20171009git4e8295f.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-908d39fa3a
macromilter-3.3-1.20171009git4e8295f.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-9c37660a0a
macromilter-3.3-1.20171009git4e8295f.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-0fe0ed4ce2
macromilter-3.3-1.20171009git4e8295f.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-2017-9c37660a0a
macromilter-3.3-1.20171009git4e8295f.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 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-2017-7575af4524
macromilter-3.3-1.20171009git4e8295f.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 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-EPEL-2017-0fe0ed4ce2
macromilter-3.3-1.20171009git4e8295f.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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-2017-908d39fa3a
macromilter-3.3-1.20171009git4e8295f.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
macromilter-3.3-1.20171009git4e8295f.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
macromilter-3.3-1.20171009git4e8295f.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
macromilter-3.3-1.20171009git4e8295f.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.