Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/pwncat.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/pwncat-0.1.0-1.fc31.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/cytopia/pwncat Description: TCP/UDP communication suite for firewall and IDS/IPS evasion, bind and reverse shell, self-injecting shell and port forwarding magic. pwncat is fully scriptable with Python (PSE). Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=47206661 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint pwncat-0.1.0-1.fc31.src.rpm pwncat.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scriptable -> scrip table, scrip-table, script able 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint pwncat-0.1.0-1.fc31.noarch.rpm pwncat.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scriptable -> scrip table, scrip-table, script able pwncat.noarch: W: no-documentation pwncat.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pwncat 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Fedora Account System Username: fab
- Install docs/ as %doc - There is a man pages in man/ , please install it. 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: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Python Software Foundation License". 175 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/pwncat/review- pwncat/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. [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 81920 bytes in 3 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 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 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 ===== 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 python3-pwncat [?]: 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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: pwncat-0.1.0-1.fc33.noarch.rpm python3-pwncat-0.1.0-1.fc33.noarch.rpm pwncat-0.1.0-1.fc33.src.rpm pwncat.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scriptable -> scrip table, scrip-table, script able pwncat.noarch: W: no-documentation pwncat.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pwncat python3-pwncat.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scriptable -> scrip table, scrip-table, script able pwncat.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scriptable -> scrip table, scrip-table, script able 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #1) > - Install docs/ as %doc Added > - There is a man pages in man/ , please install it. Added %changelog * Fri Aug 21 2020 Fabian Affolter <mail> - 0.1.0-2 - Fix review issues (rhbz#1856904) Updated files: Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/pwncat.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/pwncat-0.1.0-2.fc32.src.rpm
Package approved.
Thanks for the review.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pwncat
FEDORA-2020-4ff810021a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-4ff810021a
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-d464fe632d has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-d464fe632d
FEDORA-2020-2b725239a8 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-2b725239a8
FEDORA-2020-4ff810021a has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-4ff810021a \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-4ff810021a See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-d464fe632d has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-d464fe632d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-2b725239a8 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-2b725239a8 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-2b725239a8 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-4ff810021a has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-2b725239a8 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-d464fe632d has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.