Spec URL: https://www.uddeborg.se/portsentry/portsentry.spec SRPM URL: https://www.uddeborg.se/portsentry/portsentry-2.0.1^20250616git3c0b5a3-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: Portsentry monitors network traffic in order to detect port scans in real-time. It can identify several types of scans, including TCP, SYN, FIN, XMAS, and NULL scans and UDP probing. Fedora Account System Username: goeran
For the convenience of anyone wanting to try this out, there are COPR builds available: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/goeran/portsentry/
An updated version 2.0.2 is available: Spec URL: https://www.uddeborg.se/portsentry/portsentry-2.0.2.spec SRPM URL: https://www.uddeborg.se/portsentry/portsentry-2.0.2-1.fc43.src.rpm
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. Note: portsentry-2.0.2.spec should be portsentry.spec See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_spec_file_naming ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* Common Public License 1.0", "BSD 1-Clause License". 169 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/portsentry/2373124-portsentry- 2.0.2/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/fail2ban/filter.d, /etc/fail2ban, /etc/fail2ban/jail.d [ ]: %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. [ ]: 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. [x]: 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 106666 bytes in 14 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 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]: 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 portsentry [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. [!]: 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. [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]: 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: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: portsentry-2.0.2-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm portsentry-2.0.2-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmpfc9j_snv')] checks: 32, packages: 2 portsentry.x86_64: W: package-with-huge-docs 54% portsentry.x86_64: E: logrotate-log-dir-not-packaged /var/log 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: portsentry-debuginfo-2.0.2-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmpvgqnk3ct')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory (none): W: unable to load spellchecking dictionary for sv. (none): W: unable to load spellchecking dictionary for sv. ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 2 portsentry.x86_64: W: package-with-huge-docs 54% portsentry.x86_64: E: logrotate-log-dir-not-packaged /var/log 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 9 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.4 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/portsentry/portsentry/archive/v2.0.2/portsentry-2.0.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3234de77e0b495203382e126173cc751b1b4480404d27a6222cf36045307c0bf CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3234de77e0b495203382e126173cc751b1b4480404d27a6222cf36045307c0bf Requires -------- portsentry (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh config(portsentry) libc.so.6()(64bit) libpcap.so.1()(64bit) logrotate rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- portsentry: config(portsentry) portsentry portsentry(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/portsentry/2373124-portsentry-2.0.2/srpm/portsentry-2.0.2.spec 2025-08-03 15:50:27.783706758 +0300 +++ /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/portsentry/2373124-portsentry-2.0.2/srpm-unpacked/portsentry.spec 2025-07-02 03:00:00.000000000 +0300 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.7.2) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + Name: portsentry @@ -87,3 +97,9 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Wed Jul 02 2025 Göran Uddeborg <goeran> - 2.0.2-1 +- Upgrade to version 2.0.2 + +* Tue Jun 17 2025 Göran Uddeborg <goeran> - 2.0.1^git3c0b5a3-1 +- Initial packaging put up for review +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2373124 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Haskell, SugarActivity, Perl, Java, R, fonts, Python, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Perhaps write the cmake configuration line as %cmake -D CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release \ -D BUILD_TESTS=ON \ -DCMAKE_VERBOSE_MAKEFILE:BOOL=ON \ -D CMAKE_INSTALL_SYSCONFDIR=%_sysconfdir \ -D CMAKE_INSTALL_LIBDIR=lib b) One file seems to be under BSD 1-Clause License -------------------- portsentry-2.0.2-build/portsentry-2.0.2/src/uthash.h c) Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=135647587 d) Let upstream know contributing to https://github.com/portsentry/portsentry/issues/129 e) Perhaps ask upstream to indicate one file has a different license f) Should fail2ban be required?
Thanks a lot for your review! You probably realised, but just in case: the discrepancy in the spec file name, with and without version number, was just because I wanted to keep the original version available during the review if anyone wanted to compare. It is without version number in the SRPM and the repo. About your comments a) Yes, a good idea. b) and e) That I missed. I wonder if that really is intentional. The whole thing was recently relicensed to BSD-2-Clause recently. I'll update the spec, and also check with Marcus if it might be a mistke: https://github.com/portsentry/portsentry/issues/159 c) Nothing to comment, right? d) I already am in contact with him, he knows this work is ongoing. f) Good question, I was thinking about that but wasn't sure what to do. Portsentry can be run in various modes, it can just log, it can block itself, or it can integrate with fail2ban. See the top of the README. Thus a hard requirement seemed inappropriate. Perhaps a "recommends" would be better? Or maybe the fail2ban configuration files should be factored out in a separate (small) subpackage, that does require fail2ban? I chose the recommends option for now, but am open to ideas. What do you think? A new version, where I've also upgraded to the most recent upstreams version 2.0.3, is available at Spec URL: https://www.uddeborg.se/portsentry/portsentry-2.0.3.spec SRPM URL: https://www.uddeborg.se/portsentry/portsentry-2.0.3-1.fc43.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9379754 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2373124-portsentry/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09379754-portsentry/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 Issues: ======= - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. Note: portsentry-2.0.3.spec should be portsentry.spec See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_spec_file_naming ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* Common Public License 1.0", "BSD 1-Clause License". 169 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora- packaging/reviews/portsentry/2373124-portsentry-2.0.3/licensecheck.txt [ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/fail2ban, /etc/fail2ban/filter.d, /etc/fail2ban/jail.d [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: 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 106835 bytes in 14 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 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]: 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 portsentry [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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: portsentry-2.0.3-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm portsentry-2.0.3-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmpi7vs4piv')] checks: 32, packages: 2 portsentry.x86_64: W: package-with-huge-docs 54% portsentry.x86_64: E: logrotate-log-dir-not-packaged /var/log 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: portsentry-debuginfo-2.0.3-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmp87k6gxrz')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory (none): W: unable to load spellchecking dictionary for sv. (none): W: unable to load spellchecking dictionary for sv. ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 2 portsentry.x86_64: W: package-with-huge-docs 54% portsentry.x86_64: E: logrotate-log-dir-not-packaged /var/log 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 9 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/portsentry/portsentry/archive/v2.0.3/portsentry-2.0.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3e1452581f294bc67a5966269cbbaff92b9490679f98cead0158756a72d8a5be CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3e1452581f294bc67a5966269cbbaff92b9490679f98cead0158756a72d8a5be Requires -------- portsentry (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh config(portsentry) libc.so.6()(64bit) libpcap.so.1()(64bit) logrotate rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- portsentry: config(portsentry) portsentry portsentry(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/portsentry/2373124-portsentry-2.0.3/srpm/portsentry-2.0.3.spec 2025-08-14 17:22:16.524712564 +0300 +++ /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/portsentry/2373124-portsentry-2.0.3/srpm-unpacked/portsentry.spec 2025-08-05 03:00:00.000000000 +0300 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.7.2) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + Name: portsentry @@ -92,3 +102,13 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Tue Aug 05 2025 Göran Uddeborg <goeran> - 2.0.3-1 +- Adjust according to comments in the review +- Upgrade to version 2.0.3 + +* Wed Jul 02 2025 Göran Uddeborg <goeran> - 2.0.2-1 +- Upgrade to version 2.0.2 + +* Tue Jun 17 2025 Göran Uddeborg <goeran> - 2.0.1^git3c0b5a3-1 +- Initial packaging put up for review +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2373124 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, PHP, Perl, fonts, Haskell, Python, SugarActivity, Ocaml, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) To ensure all directories are owned, need to change Recommends: fail2ban to Requires: fail2ban-server It is reasonable to move the config files into a sub-package and have the sub-package require fail2ban-server, but having them all in the main package seems fine unless you think the extra dependency will be inappropriate for most usecases. b) Please add at least some parts of the file namse for: %_mandir/man8/* %config(noreplace) %_sysconfdir/fail2ban/*/* This will help prevent conflicts should new files be installed.
Thank you for more good comments! a) I'm not sure it would be inappropriate for MOST usecases. But according to the upstreams developer, a common usecase is to have this installed in an internal network to discover rogue servers. In that case you rather want to get an alert so you can do something about the server itself, rather than just blocking on the attacked hosts. For that reason I did do the split. The "portsentry" package now recommends "portsentry-fail2ban", while the latter requires "fail2ban-server" (and the main "portsentry" package). In that way a default installation will include the fail2ban part, but it is possible to avoid it in cases where it would mean bloat and where you care about it. b) I've done as suggested, listing complete paths. Now using a glob only for the package specific directory in /etc. About the license discrepancy from the previous round: that is intentional: https://github.com/portsentry/portsentry/issues/159 My next try can be found here: Spec URL: https://www.uddeborg.se/portsentry/portsentry-2.0.3-2.spec SRPM URL: https://www.uddeborg.se/portsentry/portsentry-2.0.3-2.fc44.src.rpm
Created attachment 2104040 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9379754 to 9440679
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9440679 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2373124-portsentry/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09440679-portsentry/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.
An updated version 2.0.4 is available: Spec URL: https://www.uddeborg.se/portsentry/portsentry-2.0.4.spec SRPM URL: https://www.uddeborg.se/portsentry/portsentry-2.0.4-1.fc44.src.rpm
Created attachment 2105573 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9440679 to 9514987
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9514987 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2373124-portsentry/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09514987-portsentry/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.
There are frequent upstreams patch releases currently. In 2.0.5 a change was made that simplified the packaging slightly. A cmake option is used that avoids the workaround in the %install section that removed the copy of the license file in the wrong place. Spec URL: https://www.uddeborg.se/portsentry/portsentry-2.0.5.spec SRPM URL: https://www.uddeborg.se/portsentry/portsentry-2.0.5-1.fc44.src.rpm
Created attachment 2106089 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9514987 to 9537206
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9537206 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2373124-portsentry/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09537206-portsentry/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.
Ping Benson, were you happy with my last updates, or do you wish more changes before resolving this review?
Thanks for the reminder. Will get to this by tomorrow.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. Note: portsentry-2.0.5.spec should be portsentry.spec See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_spec_file_naming ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* Common Public License 1.0", "BSD 1-Clause License". 171 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/portsentry/2373124-portsentry- 2.0.5/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [x]: 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 107591 bytes in 14 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]: %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]: 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 portsentry [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 portsentry-fail2ban [ ]: 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. [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]: 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: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: portsentry-2.0.5-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm portsentry-fail2ban-2.0.5-1.fc44.noarch.rpm portsentry-2.0.5-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmp6putrcar')] checks: 32, packages: 3 portsentry.x86_64: W: package-with-huge-docs 53% portsentry-fail2ban.noarch: W: no-documentation portsentry.x86_64: E: logrotate-log-dir-not-packaged /var/log 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 11 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: portsentry-debuginfo-2.0.5-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmpr010ld3n')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory (none): W: unable to load spellchecking dictionary for sv. (none): W: unable to load spellchecking dictionary for sv. (none): W: unable to load spellchecking dictionary for sv. (none): W: unable to load spellchecking dictionary for sv. ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 3 portsentry.x86_64: W: package-with-huge-docs 53% portsentry-fail2ban.noarch: W: no-documentation portsentry.x86_64: E: logrotate-log-dir-not-packaged /var/log 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 13 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.4 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/portsentry/portsentry/archive/v2.0.5/portsentry-2.0.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5407a3687bb12318f3ba6b4d5d28ea9bd0371949e1a613c3d4afedb949671d33 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5407a3687bb12318f3ba6b4d5d28ea9bd0371949e1a613c3d4afedb949671d33 Requires -------- portsentry (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh config(portsentry) libc.so.6()(64bit) libpcap.so.1()(64bit) logrotate rtld(GNU_HASH) portsentry-fail2ban (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(portsentry-fail2ban) fail2ban-server portsentry Provides -------- portsentry: config(portsentry) portsentry portsentry(x86-64) portsentry-fail2ban: config(portsentry-fail2ban) portsentry-fail2ban Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/portsentry/2373124-portsentry-2.0.5/srpm/portsentry-2.0.5.spec 2025-09-09 16:11:18.640693467 +0300 +++ /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/portsentry/2373124-portsentry-2.0.5/srpm-unpacked/portsentry.spec 2025-09-09 03:00:00.000000000 +0300 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.7.2) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + Name: portsentry @@ -112,3 +122,25 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Tue Sep 09 2025 Göran Uddeborg <goeran> - 2.0.5-1 +- Upgrade to release 2.0.5 + +* Tue Sep 02 2025 Göran Uddeborg <goeran> - 2.0.4-1 +- Upgrade to release 2.0.4 + +* Tue Aug 19 2025 Göran Uddeborg <goeran> - 2.0.3^git9a71c18-1 +- Include upstreams patch to check for service per IP + +* Mon Aug 18 2025 Göran Uddeborg <goeran> - 2.0.3-2 +- Adjust according to a second round of review comments + +* Tue Aug 05 2025 Göran Uddeborg <goeran> - 2.0.3-1 +- Adjust according to comments in the review +- Upgrade to version 2.0.3 + +* Wed Jul 02 2025 Göran Uddeborg <goeran> - 2.0.2-1 +- Upgrade to version 2.0.2 + +* Tue Jun 17 2025 Göran Uddeborg <goeran> - 2.0.1^git3c0b5a3-1 +- Initial packaging put up for review +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2373124 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: PHP, Ocaml, Haskell, SugarActivity, Perl, fonts, Python, R, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=137750548 b) fail2ban package should have a license file or require the main package c) Documentation is not too large, but still maybe worth creating a noarch doc sub package d) Man pages and some documentation files are under Common Public License 1.0 https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/%40fedora-review/fedora-review-2373124-portsentry/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09537206-portsentry/fedora-review/licensecheck.txt so license should be BSD-2-Clause AND BSD-1-Clause AND CPL-1.0 e) The systemd install location seems reasonable, it would be preferable to use fedora macros, %{_unitdir}: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Systemd/#packaging_filesystem Maybe upstream could make this a user defined location? Fedora does not seem to have a pkgconfig file for systemd: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/systemd/blob/rawhide/f/systemd.spec#_1 The projects below use pkgconfig to find the appropriate location: https://github.com/sddm/sddm/pull/344/files https://github.com/grpc/grpc/blob/master/cmake/modules/Findsystemd.cmake https://github.com/rpavlik/cmake-modules/blob/main/FindSystemd.cmake https://github.com/Cloudef/wlc/blob/master/CMake/FindSystemd.cmake https://github.com/LizardByte/Sunshine/blob/master/cmake/FindSystemd.cmake This does not appear to be standardized though. d) Can PrivateDevices be set to yes in the systemd configuration file? https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Systemd/#private e) $rpmlint -e logrotate-log-dir-not-packaged logrotate-log-dir-not-packaged: Please add the specified directory to the file list to be able to check permissions.