Spec URL: http://filebin.ca/bkpuxt/dnsenum.spec SRPM URL: http://filebin.ca/gsxuzr/dnsenum-1.2-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: The purpose of Dnsenum is to gather as much information as possible about a domain. The program currently capable of getting A,MX,NS records,extra domain names and subomains via google scrapping and Brute force submains from file.Can perfrom whois and reverse lookups on netranges and writes the ip-blocks to domain_ips.txt. rpmlint output is here: [imran@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint dnsenum.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Need Sponsor
Let me do a informal review. Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [X] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2124782 Tested on: [!] Rpmlint output: dnsenum.src: E: summary-too-long C DNSenum is a penetration testing tool created to enumerate DNS info about domains dnsenum.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C DNSenum [x] Package is not relocatable. [x] Buildroot is correct (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)) [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. License type: [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 %doc. [!] Spec file is legible and written in American English. There are several grammar problem in the description: The program currently capable: capable --> is capable writes the ip-blocks to domain_ips. writes --> write [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. MD5SUM this package :36d9150bd266ccf5eb55edf0e79f4ea8 MD5SUM upstream package:36d9150bd266ccf5eb55edf0e79f4ea8 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch, OR: Arches excluded: Why: [!] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Should at least add perl(Readonly) to the Requires [-] The spec file handles locales properly. [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [-] Package must own all directories that it creates. [-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [!] Permissions on files are set properly. Executables should set executable attribute.http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [x] Package consistently uses macros. [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [x] Latest version is packaged. [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Tested on: i686, x86-64 [x] Package functions as described. [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [-] File based requires are sane. === Issues === 1. There are some grammar problems in the description. 2. Several perl related problems. Please read http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl 3. rpmlint should be run on every rpms generated, not just spec.
Welcome to Fedora Project and Thanks for submitting this package. You first need to install fedora-packager rpm on your Fedora system. New contributors need to show that they have an understanding of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process and of the Fedora packaging guidelines. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored Sponsorship can be obtained either by Submitting few more packages that follows Fedora packaging guidelines. AND/OR Doing an un-official(informal) package reviews for other people's package submission. (Note: you can not do official package reviews and approve others packages in Fedora till you get sponsored) So, start reviewing packages and post the review bug number here. This will show that you are doing some review work and people who can check your review and sponsor you accordingly. References that you can use for this process are http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageNamingGuidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Packaging_guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines Use above links for reviewing others packages. Also, Good if you will review in detail. Make sure you are checking scratch build is successful and rpmlint output in review. For scratch build on koji use command koji build --scratch dist-f14 <SRPM_file> Find new packages from http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html
Here is my informal review of mashpodder https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=584090
Good job on your informal review. How about updating your own package?
Thanks I will update the spec file soon Few more Review Requests 1.mozilla-googlesharing - Anonymizing proxy service for google sharing system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=585467 2.rktime - Multi-zone time display utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=584728
The binary /usr/sbin/dnsenum is placed in /usr/sbin/ but I do not see that it needs to run as root at all. Why is it there? Also, as it is only a perl script, it seems it is a 'noarch' package -- Russ herrold
Thanks Liberty, Parag and Russ Herrold Revised SPEC and SRPMS Spec URL: http://github.com/downloads/matriux/fedora/dnsenum.spec SRPM URL: http://github.com/downloads/matriux/fedora/mozilla-googlesharing-0.18-3.fc11.src.rpm -Fixed English grammer errors -permissions and rpmlint warnings are fixed
Above url is of different src the correct URL of dnsenum is SRPM URL: http://github.com/downloads/matriux/fedora/dnsenum-1.2-2.fc11.src.rpm
Created attachment 409430 [details] Patch to fix few more cleanups of SPEC as per guidelines. Few more things you need to do in SPEC are 1) Usage of macro style for install should be dropped or macros should be written for rm command also. 2) /usr/bin should be replaced with its macro %{_bindir} ==> See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Macros 3) we generally don't want to keep file extension to files being copied to /usr/bin so install dnsenum.pl as dnsenum only Add Changelog and submit new SPEC and SRPM for review.
Updated Spec and Src Rpm SPEC URL: http://github.com/downloads/matriux/fedora/dnsenum.spec SRPMS URL: http://github.com/downloads/matriux/fedora/dnsenum-1.2-3.fc11.src.rpm
Pre-Review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=570829
Reviews in which i have participated <a href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=567241">Bug 567241</a> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=567654 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578990 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=581131 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=585707
Review: + package builds in mock (rawhide i686). koji Build =>http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2157346 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. dnsenum.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US axfr -> ax fr, ax-fr, axon dnsenum.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subdomains -> sub domains, sub-domains, domains dnsenum.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US google -> Google, goggle, googly dnsenum.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bruteforces -> brute forces, brute-forces, reinforces dnsenum.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US whois -> whops, who's, who is dnsenum.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lookups -> lockups, hookups, look ups dnsenum.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US netranges -> net ranges, net-ranges, estranges dnsenum.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ip -> pi, up, op dnsenum.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ips -> pis, ups, ops dnsenum.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US txt -> text, ext, tit dnsenum.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://dnsenum.googlecode.com/files/dnsenum1.2.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found dnsenum.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US axfr -> ax fr, ax-fr, axon dnsenum.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subdomains -> sub domains, sub-domains, domains dnsenum.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US google -> Google, goggle, googly dnsenum.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bruteforces -> brute forces, brute-forces, reinforces dnsenum.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US whois -> whops, who's, who is dnsenum.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lookups -> lockups, hookups, look ups dnsenum.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US netranges -> net ranges, net-ranges, estranges dnsenum.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ip -> pi, up, op dnsenum.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ips -> pis, ups, ops dnsenum.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US txt -> text, ext, tit 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 21 warnings. == >Ignore these messages. + source files match upstream url (sha1sum) 3a34814ec04a9fd651799753b851a1ae837e89f3 dnsenum1.2.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is present. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Does owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + Not a GUI application APPROVED.
I will sponsor you once you finish some more reviews.
I see you have done good reviews. So I am going to sponsor you now and therefore removing FE-NEEDSPONSOR.
Thanks alot Parag :)
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: dnsenum Short Description: A tool to enumerate DNS info about domains Owners: matriux Branches: F-12 F-13 InitialCC:
CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).
I think this package is already built for requested branches. Any reason for not closing this review?
Hi Parag, Closing the review,thanks
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: dnsenum New Branches: el6 epel7 Owners: fab InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).