Bug 1848404 - Review Request: certwatch - SSL/TLS certificate expiry warning generator
Summary: Review Request: certwatch - SSL/TLS certificate expiry warning generator
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Robert-André Mauchin 🐧
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2020-06-18 10:18 UTC by Joe Orton
Modified: 2020-08-22 19:09 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2020-08-22 19:09:01 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
zebob.m: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Joe Orton 2020-06-18 10:18:34 UTC
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~jorton/certwatch/certwatch.spec
SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~jorton/certwatch/certwatch-1.2-1.fc33.src.rpm
Description: SSL/TLS certificate expiry warning generator
Fedora Account System Username: jorton

Comment 1 Fabian Affolter 2020-06-26 09:32:17 UTC
Just some quick comments:

- License is GPLv2+, see https://github.com/notroj/certwatch/blob/ff8ad088a780e35a9bf3d6a95e9ca8c8c5190f9a/certwatch.c#L4-L7
- 'rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT' was made obsolete a while ago
- 'Source0:        https://github.com/notroj/certwatch/archive/v%{version}.tar.gz#/certwatch-%{version}.tar.gz' could be replaced with 'Source0:        %{uel}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz'
- The replacement of crypto-utils seems incomplete, see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#renaming-or-replacing-existing-packages
- The cron job file should be tagged with '%config(noreplace)' in the % files section

Comment 2 Joe Orton 2020-06-26 10:12:47 UTC
Thanks for the feedback!  I've updated the spec/srpm as follows:

(In reply to Fabian Affolter from comment #1)
> Just some quick comments:
> 
> - License is GPLv2+, see
> https://github.com/notroj/certwatch/blob/
> ff8ad088a780e35a9bf3d6a95e9ca8c8c5190f9a/certwatch.c#L4-L7
> - 'rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT' was made obsolete a while ago

Both fixed.

> - 'Source0:       
> https://github.com/notroj/certwatch/archive/v%{version}.tar.gz#/certwatch-
> %{version}.tar.gz' could be replaced with 'Source0:       
> %{uel}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz'

I assume you mean %{url} not %{uel}, and it could, but I prefer the full URL.

> - The replacement of crypto-utils seems incomplete, see
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#renaming-or-
> replacing-existing-packages

AFAICT this is exactly what the package does:

"If a package supersedes/replaces an existing package without being a sufficiently compatible replacement as defined above, use only the Obsoletes: line from the above example."

> - The cron job file should be tagged with '%config(noreplace)' in the %
> files section

Fixed.

Comment 3 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2020-06-30 08:41:10 UTC
Source0:        https://github.com/notroj/certwatch/archive/v%{version}.tar.gz#/certwatch-%{version}.tar.gz

→

Source0:        https://github.com/notroj/certwatch/archive/v%{version}/certwatch-%{version}.tar.gz


 - Would appreciate one BR and RR per line

 - Add a RR agaisnt cron for your script

certwatch-mod_ssl.x86_64: E: missing-dependency-to-cron for cron script /etc/cron.daily/certwatch


Package approved. Please fix the aforementioned issue before import.



Package Review
==============

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



===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License",
     "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)". 13 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/bob/packaging/review/certwatch/review-certwatch/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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]: 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]: 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 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]: %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:
[-]: 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
     certwatch-mod_ssl
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: 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.
[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 debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: certwatch-1.2-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          certwatch-mod_ssl-1.2-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          certwatch-debuginfo-1.2-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          certwatch-debugsource-1.2-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          certwatch-1.2-1.fc33.src.rpm
certwatch.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided crypto-utils
certwatch-mod_ssl.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ssl -> isl, sol, ssh
certwatch-mod_ssl.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ssl -> isl, sol, ssh
certwatch-mod_ssl.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cron -> corn, con, crone
certwatch-mod_ssl.x86_64: E: missing-dependency-to-cron for cron script /etc/cron.daily/certwatch
certwatch-mod_ssl.x86_64: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/cron.daily/certwatch
certwatch-mod_ssl.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/sysconfig/certwatch 0
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 4 warnings.

Comment 4 Gwyn Ciesla 2020-07-01 13:03:52 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/certwatch


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.