Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/snallygaster.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/snallygaster-0.0.6-1.fc31.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/hannob/snallygaster Description: snallygaster is a tool that looks for files accessible on web servers that shouldn't be public and can pose a security risk.Typical examples include publicly accessible git repositories, backup files potentially containing passwords or database dumps. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=44906768 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint snallygaster-0.0.6-1.fc31.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint snallygaster-0.0.6-1.fc31.noarch.rpm snallygaster.noarch: W: no-documentation snallygaster.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary snallygaster 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Fedora Account System Username: fab
Hi! Tests fail on mock because pycodestyle, pyflakes, pylint and flake8 are missing. And since test_scan_testdata do not run because there's no internet connection, only coding style tests are running, which raises the question of relevancy of those tests...
(In reply to Lyes Saadi from comment #1) > Tests fail on mock because pycodestyle, pyflakes, pylint and flake8 are > missing. This is the reason why I limited the tests. Guidelines say not to run lintings and alike. %check # Not running the lint test %{__python3} tests/test_scan_testdata.py > And since test_scan_testdata do not run because there's no internet > connection, only coding style tests are running, which raises the question > of relevancy of those tests... The tests only run if the env var RUN_ONLINETESTS is set as upstream uses a decorator (@unittest.skipUnless(os.environ.get("RUN_ONLINETESTS")) to skip it. Thus, the tests should not run on mock. At least in Koji, they don't.
(In reply to Fabian Affolter from comment #2) > (In reply to Lyes Saadi from comment #1) > > Tests fail on mock because pycodestyle, pyflakes, pylint and flake8 are > > missing. > > This is the reason why I limited the tests. Guidelines say not to run > lintings and alike. Yes, this is why I questioned the relevancy ;). > %check > # Not running the lint test > %{__python3} tests/test_scan_testdata.py I think you sent the wrong spec? Here (https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/snallygaster.spec), I can see this: > %check > %{__python3} setup.py test
(In reply to Lyes Saadi from comment #3) > (In reply to Fabian Affolter from comment #2) > I think you sent the wrong spec? > > Here (https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/snallygaster.spec), I can > see this: > > > %check > > %{__python3} setup.py test Uploaded a new spec file. Otherwise it gets messy. %changelog * Sat Jun 06 2020 Fabian Affolter <mail> - 0.0.6-2 - Add comment about running the tests (rhbz#839542) Updated files: Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/snallygaster.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/snallygaster-0.0.6-2.fc31.src.rpm
Package Approved :)! 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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 Universal 1.0 Public Domain Dedication". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/home/lyes/Documents/reviews/1839542-snallygaster/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: 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]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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. [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]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %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: snallygaster-0.0.6-2.fc33.noarch.rpm python3-snallygaster-0.0.6-2.fc33.noarch.rpm snallygaster-0.0.6-2.fc33.src.rpm snallygaster.noarch: W: no-documentation snallygaster.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary snallygaster 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-snallygaster.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/hannob/snallygaster <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> snallygaster.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/hannob/snallygaster <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> snallygaster.noarch: W: no-documentation snallygaster.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary snallygaster 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Thanks for the review.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/snallygaster
Closing as it seems to be resolved.