Spec URL: https://mikel.olasagasti.info/tmp/fedora/nsntrace.spec SRPM URL: https://mikel.olasagasti.info/tmp/fedora/nsntrace-4-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: The nsntrace program uses Linux network namespaces to perform network traces of a single application. The traces are saved as pcap files. And can later be analyzed by for instance Wireshark. Fedora Account System Username: mikelo2
Continuation of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1358959
This looks fine.
(In reply to code from comment #2) > This looks fine. Sorry, that was premature and accidentally posted. Full review to follow.
Okay, one small nitpick and then I will be ready to approve: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== [!]: You cannot run the tests because they require privileged operations (sudo), but you should add a comment explaining this. ===== 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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/src/fedora/reviews/nsntrace/1914638-nsntrace/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 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]: 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). [x]: 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. You cannot run the tests because they require privileged operations (sudo), but you should add a comment explaining this. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: nsntrace-4-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm nsntrace-debuginfo-4-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm nsntrace-debugsource-4-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm nsntrace-4-1.fc34.src.rpm nsntrace.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) namespaces -> name spaces, name-spaces, names paces nsntrace.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US namespaces -> name spaces, name-spaces, names paces nsntrace.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pcap -> pap, cap, p cap nsntrace.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) namespaces -> name spaces, name-spaces, names paces nsntrace.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US namespaces -> name spaces, name-spaces, names paces nsntrace.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pcap -> pap, cap, p cap 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: nsntrace-debuginfo-4-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- nsntrace.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) namespaces -> name spaces, name-spaces, names paces nsntrace.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US namespaces -> name spaces, name-spaces, names paces nsntrace.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pcap -> pap, cap, p cap 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/nsntrace/nsntrace/archive/v4/nsntrace-4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : df299d2fa839175057301b0e6f04178b707f9b2f84dde4c73b1321b7722e3093 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : df299d2fa839175057301b0e6f04178b707f9b2f84dde4c73b1321b7722e3093 Requires -------- nsntrace (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/sbin/iptables libc.so.6()(64bit) libnl-3.so.200()(64bit) libnl-3.so.200(libnl_3)(64bit) libnl-route-3.so.200()(64bit) libnl-route-3.so.200(libnl_3)(64bit) libpcap.so.1()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) nsntrace-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nsntrace-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- nsntrace: nsntrace nsntrace(x86-64) nsntrace-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) nsntrace-debuginfo nsntrace-debuginfo(x86-64) nsntrace-debugsource: nsntrace-debugsource nsntrace-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1914638 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Python, Perl, Haskell, Ocaml, Java, fonts, PHP, R, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
> You cannot run the tests because they require privileged operations > (sudo), but you should add a comment explaining this. I'm confused as spec has no tests or %check. Which tests are you referring to?
Normally, one of the SHOULD points in a review is “%check is present and all tests pass.” The upstream tarball *does* have tests, but they all require privilege (sudo). I’d just like to see a comment where the %check section would be, explaining that this is why there is no %check section, so the reason is clear to anyone reading the spec file.
Spec URL: https://mikel.olasagasti.info/tmp/fedora/nsntrace.spec SRPM URL: https://mikel.olasagasti.info/tmp/fedora/nsntrace-4-2.fc33.src.rpm got it and updated spec file with a comment, thanks for reviewing!
Great! Approved. Re-review below. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/src/fedora/reviews/nsntrace/re- review/1914638-nsntrace/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 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]: 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). [x]: 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. Spec file comment explains that tests require privilege and cannot be run in the RPM build environment. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: nsntrace-4-2.fc34.x86_64.rpm nsntrace-debuginfo-4-2.fc34.x86_64.rpm nsntrace-debugsource-4-2.fc34.x86_64.rpm nsntrace-4-2.fc34.src.rpm nsntrace.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) namespaces -> name spaces, name-spaces, names paces nsntrace.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US namespaces -> name spaces, name-spaces, names paces nsntrace.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pcap -> pap, cap, p cap nsntrace.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) namespaces -> name spaces, name-spaces, names paces nsntrace.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US namespaces -> name spaces, name-spaces, names paces nsntrace.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pcap -> pap, cap, p cap 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: nsntrace-debuginfo-4-2.fc34.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- nsntrace.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) namespaces -> name spaces, name-spaces, names paces nsntrace.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US namespaces -> name spaces, name-spaces, names paces nsntrace.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pcap -> pap, cap, p cap 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/nsntrace/nsntrace/archive/v4/nsntrace-4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : df299d2fa839175057301b0e6f04178b707f9b2f84dde4c73b1321b7722e3093 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : df299d2fa839175057301b0e6f04178b707f9b2f84dde4c73b1321b7722e3093 Requires -------- nsntrace (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/sbin/iptables libc.so.6()(64bit) libnl-3.so.200()(64bit) libnl-3.so.200(libnl_3)(64bit) libnl-route-3.so.200()(64bit) libnl-route-3.so.200(libnl_3)(64bit) libpcap.so.1()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) nsntrace-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nsntrace-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- nsntrace: nsntrace nsntrace(x86-64) nsntrace-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) nsntrace-debuginfo nsntrace-debuginfo(x86-64) nsntrace-debugsource: nsntrace-debugsource nsntrace-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1914638 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Python, SugarActivity, fonts, Perl, Ocaml, Haskell, R, PHP, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nsntrace