Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/lvrabec/udica/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00809105-udica/udica.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/lvrabec/udica/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00809105-udica/udica-0.1.0-1.fc30.src.rpm Description: Tool for generating SELinux security profiles for containers. The whole concept is based on "block inheritence" feature inside CIL intermediate language supported by SELinux userspace. The tool creates a policy which combines rules inherited from specified CIL blocks(templates) and rules discovered by inspection of container JSON file, which contains mountpoints and ports definitions. Fedora Account System Username: lvrabec
Taking this review.
Neal, sorry for stepping in, but I did not see any update from you during last days, so I am submitting my preliminary review since I verbally promised it to Lukas. From automated fedora-review: Issues: ======= - Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros - None of the files have any license header. - No known owner of /usr/share/udica/templates - you probably need to specify this directory explicitly in your files section Rpmlint ------- udica.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US inheritence -> inheritance, inheritor, incoherence udica.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mountpoints -> mount points, mount-points, outpoints udica.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C Tool for generating SELinux security profiles for containers. The whole concept is based on "block inheritence" feature inside CIL intermediate language supported by SELinux userspace. The tool creates a policy which combines rules inherited from specified CIL blocks(templates) and rules discovered by inspection of container JSON file, which contains mountpoints and ports definitions. udica.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/udica/parse.py 644 /bin/python3 udica.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/udica/perms.py 644 /bin/python3 udica.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/udica/policy.py 644 /bin/python3 udica.src:21: W: setup-not-quiet udica.src:84: W: macro-in-%changelog %files 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 6 warnings.
> Neal, sorry for stepping in, but I did not see any update from you during last days, so I am submitting my preliminary review since I verbally promised it to Lukas. If you promised it and want to do it instead, I'll hand it off to you. I had started reviewing it, but since you've already commented, here you go.
Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/lvrabec/udica/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00814101-udica/udica.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/lvrabec/udica/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00814101-udica/udica-0.1.1-2.fc30.src.rpm Description: Tool for generating SELinux security profiles for containers based on inspection of container JSON file. Fedora Account System Username: lvrabec Rpmlint ------- Checking: udica-0.1.1-2.fc30.noarch.rpm udica-0.1.1-2.fc30.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Thanks for review.
Do you really need the .github related files in the release tarball? udica-0.1.1/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.md udica-0.1.1/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/custom.md udica-0.1.1/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature_request.md Otherwise, the package looks good: ===== 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 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /root/1640695-udica/licensecheck.txt [-]: 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. [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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: 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 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: [-]: 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. [-]: 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.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/udica
Thanks for review.
udica-0.1.1-2.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-254795d186
udica-0.1.1-2.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-a6271aa651
udica-0.1.1-2.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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-2018-254795d186
udica-0.1.1-2.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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-2018-a6271aa651
udica-0.1.1-2.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
udica-0.1.1-2.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.