Spec URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/postfwd.spec SRPM URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/postfwd-2.03-1.src.rpm Description: Postfwd is written in Perl to combine complex Postfix restrictions in a ruleset similar to those of the most firewalls. The program uses the Postfix policy delegation protocol to control access to the mail system before a message has been accepted. It allows to choose an action (e.g. reject, dunno) for a combination of several SMTP parameters (like sender and recipient address, size or the client's TLS fingerprint). Fedora Account System Username: robert
Taking this for review. The package is NOT approved yet. - There are files placed in unowned directories. You should probably require systemd, you're distributing the service files anyways. The linting errors look like false positive to me. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in postfwd See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets ===== 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". 36 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mrunge/review/1981585-postfwd/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/tmpfiles.d, /usr/lib/systemd, /usr/lib/systemd/system [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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 337920 bytes in 15 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]: %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 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]: 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: 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). [?]: 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]: Files in /run, var/run and /var/lock uses tmpfiles.d when appropriate [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: postfwd-2.03-1.fc36.noarch.rpm postfwd-2.03-1.fc36.src.rpm postfwd.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Postfix -> Post fix, Post-fix, Postbox postfwd.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) policyd -> policy, policed, policy d postfwd.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ruleset -> rule set, rule-set, russet postfwd.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ruleset -> rule set, rule-set, russet postfwd.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /etc/postfwd postfwd postfwd.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /etc/postfwd 750 postfwd.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /etc/postfwd/postfwd.cf postfwd postfwd.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/postfwd/postfwd.cf 640 postfwd.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /run/postfwd postfwd postfwd.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /run/postfwd postfwd postfwd.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /run/postfwd 750 postfwd.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/postfwd postfwd postfwd.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/postfwd postfwd postfwd.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/postfwd 750 postfwd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary postfwd-client postfwd.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Postfix -> Post fix, Post-fix, Postbox postfwd.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) policyd -> policy, policed, policy d postfwd.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ruleset -> rule set, rule-set, russet postfwd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ruleset -> rule set, rule-set, russet 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 15 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/postfwd/postfwd/archive/v2.03/postfwd-2.03.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 98c297cdeaa0d8f7d792f18beeaba039e966fc8d9f66752276aebfba05c31dad CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 98c297cdeaa0d8f7d792f18beeaba039e966fc8d9f66752276aebfba05c31dad Requires -------- postfwd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/more /usr/bin/perl /usr/bin/pod2text config(postfwd) perl(Data::Dumper) perl(Digest::MD5) perl(Exporter) perl(Getopt::Long) perl(IO::Pipe) perl(IO::Socket) perl(Net::CIDR::Lite) perl(Net::DNS) perl(Net::Server::Daemonize) perl(Net::Server::Multiplex) perl(Net::Server::PreFork) perl(NetAddr::IP) perl(POSIX) perl(Pod::Usage) perl(Storable) perl(Sys::Syslog) perl(Time::HiRes) perl(base) perl(strict) perl(vars) perl(warnings) shadow-utils Provides -------- postfwd: config(postfwd) postfwd Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1981585 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, C/C++, Java, R, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Python, Perl, PHP, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(In reply to Matthias Runge from comment #1) > - systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and > systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. > Note: Systemd service file(s) in postfwd > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets Thank you very much for the review! This is indeed a mistake resulting from missing %{?systemd_requires}. Spec URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/postfwd.spec SRPM URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/postfwd-2.03-2.src.rpm
Thank you, looks good now. Package APPROVED.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/postfwd
FEDORA-2021-5eb42c5d70 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-5eb42c5d70
FEDORA-2021-a89385cc85 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-a89385cc85
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-f28c661593 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-f28c661593
FEDORA-2021-5009c3312d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-5009c3312d
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-7a430d838b has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-7a430d838b
FEDORA-2021-5009c3312d has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-5009c3312d \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-5009c3312d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-a89385cc85 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-a89385cc85 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-a89385cc85 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-5eb42c5d70 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-5eb42c5d70 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-5eb42c5d70 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-f28c661593 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-2021-f28c661593 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-7a430d838b has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-7a430d838b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-a89385cc85 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-5eb42c5d70 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-f28c661593 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-7a430d838b has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-5009c3312d has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.