Bug 1986953 - Review Request: snoopy - A preload library to send shell commands to syslog
Summary: Review Request: snoopy - A preload library to send shell commands to syslog
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Michel Lind
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
: 1928586 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
Blocks: 1736689 1884057
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2021-07-28 15:15 UTC by Neal Gompa
Modified: 2021-08-11 01:40 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2021-08-07 01:08:21 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
michel: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Neal Gompa 2021-07-28 15:15:55 UTC
Spec URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/snoopy.spec
SRPM URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/snoopy-2.4.14-1.fc35.src.rpm

Description:
Snoopy is designed to aid a sysadmin by providing a log of commands executed.
Snoopy is completely transparent to the user and applications.
It is linked into programs to provide a wrapper around calls to execve().
Logging is done via syslog.

Fedora Account System Username: ngompa

Comment 1 Neal Gompa 2021-07-28 15:18:15 UTC
*** Bug 1928586 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 2 Neal Gompa 2021-07-28 15:46:24 UTC
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=72847804

Comment 3 Neal Gompa 2021-07-28 17:57:58 UTC
Note, this is for unretiring snoopy in Fedora and fixing the FTBFS issues.

Comment 4 Raphael Groner 2021-07-28 19:07:11 UTC
Raphael Groner 2021-03-04 18:59:12 UTC
Some hints to your spec file:

…
o may additionally to BR add also Requires: procps-ng - is that a weak dependency, why Fedora only?
o please consider to generate documentation and ship in a doc subpackage 
…
o use systemd macros in %post and %postun https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_systemd

Are you interested in a review swap?

Comment 5 Michel Lind 2021-07-28 19:35:52 UTC
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #4)
> Raphael Groner 2021-03-04 18:59:12 UTC
> Some hints to your spec file:
> 
> …
> o may additionally to BR add also Requires: procps-ng - is that a weak
> dependency, why Fedora only?

That's provided by the BR on %{_bindir}/ps, no?

> o please consider to generate documentation and ship in a doc subpackage 
> …
> o use systemd macros in %post and %postun
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/
> #_systemd

This package does not ship unit files, not sure this is relevant

Comment 6 Michel Lind 2021-07-28 19:41:00 UTC
Looks fine, APPROVED

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

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


Issues:
=======
- Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
  Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/#_devel_packages

=> This is OK, needed because it's a preload library

- Package does not use a name that already exists.
  Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
  https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/snoopy
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names

=> Unretiring, expected

===== 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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[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", "[generated file]", "*No copyright* GNU General Public
     License, Version 2", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention)
     [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "GNU
     General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General Public License
     v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or
     later", "MIT License [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with
     Retention) GNU General Public License, Version 2", "FSF Unlimited
     License (with Retention)". 142 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/michel/1986953-snoopy/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.
[x]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 61440 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 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]: %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 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: 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.
[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]: 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:
[!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
     Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment.
     See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools
[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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: snoopy-2.4.14-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          snoopy-debuginfo-2.4.14-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          snoopy-debugsource-2.4.14-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          snoopy-2.4.14-1.fc35.src.rpm
snoopy.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) preload -> reload, p reload, freeload
snoopy.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) syslog -> slog
snoopy.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US execve -> exec
snoopy.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US syslog -> slog
snoopy.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/a2o/snoopy <urlopen error timed out>
snoopy.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libsnoopy.so
snoopy.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary snoopy-disable
snoopy.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary snoopy-enable
snoopy.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) preload -> reload, p reload, freeload
snoopy.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) syslog -> slog
snoopy.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US execve -> exec
snoopy.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US syslog -> slog
snoopy.src: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/a2o/snoopy <urlopen error timed out>
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 13 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: snoopy-debuginfo-2.4.14-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Unversioned so-files
--------------------
snoopy: /usr/lib64/libsnoopy.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/a2o/snoopy/releases/download/snoopy-2.4.14/snoopy-2.4.14.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 6f305f49d87d56906061ded9083dc0308365f966a13edacc3eb59191221ced1a
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6f305f49d87d56906061ded9083dc0308365f966a13edacc3eb59191221ced1a


Requires
--------
snoopy (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/sh
    config(snoopy)
    glibc
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libsnoopy.so.0()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

snoopy-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

snoopy-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
snoopy:
    config(snoopy)
    libsnoopy.so.0()(64bit)
    snoopy
    snoopy(x86-64)

snoopy-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    snoopy-debuginfo
    snoopy-debuginfo(x86-64)

snoopy-debugsource:
    snoopy-debugsource
    snoopy-debugsource(x86-64)



AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found
------------------------------
  AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: snoopy-2.4.14/configure.ac:73


Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1986953
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: PHP, Ocaml, SugarActivity, R, Python, Perl, fonts, Haskell, Java
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comment 7 Neal Gompa 2021-07-28 19:59:44 UTC
Thanks, unretirement request filed: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10236

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2021-07-29 12:46:24 UTC
FEDORA-2021-e290730a1b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-e290730a1b

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2021-07-29 12:46:38 UTC
FEDORA-2021-a6f6beca52 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-a6f6beca52

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2021-07-29 12:46:57 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-ddae0be390 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-ddae0be390

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2021-07-30 01:15:09 UTC
FEDORA-2021-a6f6beca52 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-a6f6beca52 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-a6f6beca52

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2021-07-30 01:46:46 UTC
FEDORA-2021-e290730a1b 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-e290730a1b \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-e290730a1b

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2021-07-31 00:28:37 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-ddae0be390 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-ddae0be390

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2021-08-07 01:08:21 UTC
FEDORA-2021-e290730a1b has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2021-08-07 01:14:30 UTC
FEDORA-2021-a6f6beca52 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 16 Fedora Update System 2021-08-11 01:40:45 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-ddae0be390 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


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