Spec URL: https://neil.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-ssh-audit.spec SRPM URL: https://neil.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-ssh-audit-3.0.0-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: ssh-audit is an SSH server & client security auditing (banner, key exchange, encryption, mac, compression, compatibility, security, etc) Fedora Account System Username: neil
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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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. [-]: 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 32914 bytes in 1 files. [ ]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [ ]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files ===== 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. [-]: 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. [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /home/fedora/reviews/python-ssh-audit/2244318-python- ssh-audit/srpm-unpacked/ssh-audit.spec See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-ssh-audit-3.0.0-1.fc38.noarch.rpm python-ssh-audit-3.0.0-1.fc38.src.rpm ================================================== rpmlint session starts ================================================= rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpxau2r2ia')] checks: 31, packages: 2 python3-ssh-audit.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/ssh_audit/ssh_audit.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 python3-ssh-audit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ssh-audit python-ssh-audit.src: E: invalid-spec-name =================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 3.1 s ================== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 1 python3-ssh-audit.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/ssh_audit/ssh_audit.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 python3-ssh-audit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ssh-audit 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.8 s Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/s/ssh-audit/ssh-audit-3.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a6a9f94f6f718b56961b70dbf1efcc0e42b3441822e1ea7b0c043fce1f749072 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a6a9f94f6f718b56961b70dbf1efcc0e42b3441822e1ea7b0c043fce1f749072 Requires -------- python3-ssh-audit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3dist(setuptools) Provides -------- python3-ssh-audit: python-ssh-audit python3-ssh-audit python3.11-ssh-audit python3.11dist(ssh-audit) python3dist(ssh-audit) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2244318 -m fedora-38-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: C/C++, Java, Ruby, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, R, PHP, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=107583245 b) Can any of the tests be run? c) If not tests or only a minimal set of tests can be run, for example due to network use or missing dependencies, can %py3_check_import macro be added to the %check section d) Can the newer packaging macros be used, see: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ e) Upstream publishes signatures: https://github.com/jtesta/ssh-audit/releases/tag/v3.0.0 May want to use these, though getting source from pypi is also fine
Thank you for the review! I've made quite a few changes to the spec, as well as renamed it to just `ssh-audit` to conform with the current naming policies for python "binaries", as this is not supposed to be used as a library, necessarily. Regarding your comments: > a) Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=107583245 Great, thank you. > b) Can any of the tests be run? I tried for a bit to get the tox tests to run against python3.12, but my knowledge is slightly lacking here. The %tox macro completes, but doesn't appear to have spent enough time to have actually run the test suite. Any advice here would be appreciated. I did run tox manually inside a rawhide container substituting 3.12 for 3.11, and the tests do appear to pass. I think there is something going on with the tox macro I don't quite understand. > c) If not tests or only a minimal set of tests can be run, for example due to network use or missing dependencies, can %py3_check_import macro be added to the %check section Since tox doesn't appear to be doing what I think it should, I've added this into the check section as well. > d) Can the newer packaging macros be used, see: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ Yep - Migrated over to them. I thought something was off about the spec... > e) Upstream publishes signatures: > https://github.com/jtesta/ssh-audit/releases/tag/v3.0.0 > May want to use these, though getting source from pypi is also fine Noted, and added %gpgverify to the spec. As a note, I was not able to find the pubkey anywhere except in the Github Releases for a version, it would be best I think to have it somewhere else, though it matters little once it is initially imported. Still, I will open a ticket with the upstream to discuss that. New specs: Spec URL: https://neil.fedorapeople.org/for-review/ssh-audit.spec SRPM URL: https://neil.fedorapeople.org/for-review/ssh-audit-3.0.0-1.fc40.src.rpm
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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 136 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/python-ssh-audit/2244318-ssh- audit/licensecheck.txt [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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: 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 32914 bytes in 1 files. [ ]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== 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. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [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]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [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: ssh-audit-3.0.0-1.fc38.noarch.rpm ssh-audit-3.0.0-1.fc38.src.rpm =================================== rpmlint session starts =================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp72k8bitr')] checks: 31, packages: 2 ssh-audit.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/ssh_audit/ssh_audit.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 ssh-audit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ssh-audit ==== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 7.9 s ==== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 1 ssh-audit.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/ssh_audit/ssh_audit.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 ssh-audit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ssh-audit 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.9 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/jtesta/ssh-audit/releases/download/v3.0.0/jtesta_2020-2025.asc : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9a38a116191e7f1f2fbc41fa4f55d6c1294dbc2e0cd0b40b36090978003aefd9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9a38a116191e7f1f2fbc41fa4f55d6c1294dbc2e0cd0b40b36090978003aefd9 https://github.com/jtesta/ssh-audit/releases/download/v3.0.0/ssh-audit-3.0.0.tar.gz.sig : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9a2197af22011c023c4ef723ead4f8d1611384cbbd3f4caf196d58e85eb8586f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9a2197af22011c023c4ef723ead4f8d1611384cbbd3f4caf196d58e85eb8586f https://github.com/jtesta/ssh-audit/archive/v3.0.0/ssh-audit-3.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 42ef70e004c06f3b09e7d93e3c6e2d667bec0335b6e171f2c5024503ebd5c166 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 42ef70e004c06f3b09e7d93e3c6e2d667bec0335b6e171f2c5024503ebd5c166 Requires -------- ssh-audit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) Provides -------- ssh-audit: python3.11dist(ssh-audit) python3dist(ssh-audit) ssh-audit Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2244318 -m fedora-38-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Haskell, Java, fonts, PHP, R, C/C++, Ocaml, Perl, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) There is a man page, ssh-audit.1 which would be good to package. b) Can remove: %license LICENSE License file is picked up in metadata: $ rpm -qL ssh-audit-3.0.0-1.fc38.noarch.rpm /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/ssh_audit-3.0.0.dist-info/LICENSE /usr/share/licenses/ssh-audit/LICENSE c) It seems possible to run the tests using pytest: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=107754203 https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/4284/107754284/build.log
a) Good catch. Added this in. b) done, thanks c) again, thank you. Changed to pytest spec and srpm are available at the same URLs. koji build - https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=107770080
More warnings and errors: ssh-audit.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/ssh_audit/ssh_audit.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 ssh-audit.spec:55: W: macro-in-%changelog %license ssh-audit.spec:60: W: macro-in-%changelog %gpgverify ssh-audit.spec:61: W: macro-in-%changelog %check can the shebang in ssh_audit.py be removed? https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_shebang_lines https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_shebangs Can macros be removed from changelog? For example us "license macro" instead of "%license". As package has not been imported yet, no need to have extensive changelog entries.
I was testing the tool and found this review request. I'm adding some comments. > BuildRequires: pytest Would be better: BuildRequires: python3dist(pytest) > %autosetup -n ssh-audit-%{version} It can be just %autosetup > # Remove bundled egg-info > rm -rf %{name}.egg-info No need as you're using pyproject-rpm-macros and takes care of it You can add the following in the %prep section, after %autosetup, to fix the "E: non-executable-script" error: #remove shebang sed -i -e '1{\@^#!/usr/bin/env python@d}' src/ssh_audit/ssh_audit.py In the %files section, add the following: %license LICENSE Also, I would replace Release and %changelog content for rpmautospec's %autorelease & %autochangelog
License file is correctly marked in teh metadata so no need to add %license LICENSE in the %files section $ rpm -qL ssh-audit-3.0.0-1.fc38.noarch.rpm /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/ssh_audit-3.0.0.dist-info/LICENSE
ssh-audit 3.1.0 has been released that includes Terrapin vulnerability checks. Neil, if you can't continue with the review I can open a new BZ and apply requested changes.
Spec URL: https://neil.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ssh-audit/ssh-audit.spec SRPM URL: https://neil.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ssh-audit/ssh-audit-3.1.0-1.fc39.src.rpm address comments in review
For clarity - I have made the requested changes aside from using autochangelog/autorelease, as these are not currently macros I have interest in using as they make it difficult to maintain packages for EPEL.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6848389 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2244318-ssh-audit/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06848389-ssh-audit/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Thanks for updating Neil! > %license LICENSE As per https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2244318#c7 it's not required. As Benson took the BZ I'll leave him to review it, but I can do it if you want Benson.
Spec URL: https://neil.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ssh-audit/ssh-audit.spec SRPM URL: https://neil.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ssh-audit/ssh-audit-3.1.0-1.fc39.src.rpm oops! Should've given that another pass before uploading :) -- addressed license thing
Created attachment 2006925 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6848389 to 6850761
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6850761 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2244318-ssh-audit/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06850761-ssh-audit/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 136 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2244318-ssh-audit/licensecheck.txt [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. [ ]: 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 25799 bytes in 1 files. [ ]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files ===== 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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ssh-audit-3.1.0-1.fc40.noarch.rpm ssh-audit-3.1.0-1.fc40.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpejxhtim7')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/jtesta/ssh-audit/releases/download/v3.1.0/jtesta_2020-2025.asc : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9a38a116191e7f1f2fbc41fa4f55d6c1294dbc2e0cd0b40b36090978003aefd9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9a38a116191e7f1f2fbc41fa4f55d6c1294dbc2e0cd0b40b36090978003aefd9 https://github.com/jtesta/ssh-audit/releases/download/v3.1.0/ssh-audit-3.1.0.tar.gz.sig : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2e1c93db8245a1b1a5c0b9a6455423fb83904fbdafdb4a266cf2c6931185688f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2e1c93db8245a1b1a5c0b9a6455423fb83904fbdafdb4a266cf2c6931185688f https://github.com/jtesta/ssh-audit/archive/v3.1.0/ssh-audit-3.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bea22074aa13f61cbe8e6876912a7eb5796569d980a7429deef112dc51ffd604 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bea22074aa13f61cbe8e6876912a7eb5796569d980a7429deef112dc51ffd604 Requires -------- ssh-audit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) Provides -------- ssh-audit: python3.12dist(ssh-audit) python3dist(ssh-audit) ssh-audit Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2244318 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: C/C++, Haskell, SugarActivity, fonts, R, Ocaml, Perl, Java, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Thanks. Approved. b) Head of upstream repository seems to have support for Python3.12
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ssh-audit
FEDORA-2024-027200e58b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-027200e58b
FEDORA-2024-027200e58b has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-027200e58b \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-027200e58b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-989afa382a has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-989afa382a \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-989afa382a See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-027200e58b has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-989afa382a has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.