10:19 a.m.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275304
Bug ID: 2275304
Summary: Review Request: osh - Static and Dynamic Analysis as a
Service
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: svashisht(a)redhat.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Spec URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@openscanhub/devel/fed...
SRPM URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@openscanhub/devel/fed...
Description: OpenScanHub is a service for static and dynamic analysis. It
consists of central hub, workers and cli client.
Fedora Account System Username: svashisht
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275304
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
10:24 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2275304] Review Request: osh - Static and Dynamic Analysis as a
Service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275304
--- Comment #1 from Siteshwar Vashisht <svashisht(a)redhat.com> ---
This is needed to make it easier for the new users to directly install the
command line client from the Fedora repositories. Related documentation can be
found at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/OpenScanHub
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275304
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
3:14 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2275304] Review Request: osh - Static and Dynamic Analysis as a
Service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275304
Miroslav Suchý <msuchy(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |msuchy(a)redhat.com
--- Comment #2 from Miroslav Suchý <msuchy(a)redhat.com> ---
Source: openscanhub-1.0.0.tar.gz
Can you put there
either a full URL or comment on how you fetched the tarball?
%defattr(644,root,root,755)
This is the default. You can remove
it.
%{_unitdir}/osh-retention.*
%{_unitdir}/osh-stats.*
Do you really want to have this set to root:apache?
# record timestamp
echo -n '>>> '
date -R
This looks like development stuff. Definitely should not be in final rpm.
# this only takes an effect if PostgreSQL is running and the database
exists
pg_isready -h localhost && %{python3_sitelib}/osh/hub/manage.py migrate
This is a discouraged practice. You never know how big the DB is. I saw
migration that lasted several hours. You do not want to block rpm upgrades
because of db upgrade. Or even worse, fail because of that.
This should be separate step, outside of rpm.
Provides: covscan-client = %{version}
Obsoletes: covscan-client < %{version}
Conflicts: covscan-client < %{version}
Provides and Obsoletes are OK. Then you do not need Conflicts.
All descriptions in %description should end with dot. And I believe you can be
slightly more verbose there.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275304
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
3:40 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2275304] Review Request: osh - Static and Dynamic Analysis as a
Service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275304
Kamil Dudka <kdudka(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |needinfo?(msuchy(a)redhat.com
| |)
--- Comment #3 from Kamil Dudka <kdudka(a)redhat.com> ---
(In reply to Miroslav Suchý from comment #2)
># record timestamp
>echo -n '>>> '
>date -R
This looks like development stuff. Definitely should not be in final rpm.
Is there a better way to log what happened in %post?
The same RPM package can be installed multiple times and the log is appended
each time. We need an admin-friendly way to distinguish each run of %post in
the log file.
># this only takes an effect if PostgreSQL is running and the
database exists
>pg_isready -h localhost && %{python3_sitelib}/osh/hub/manage.py migrate
This is a discouraged practice.
Could you please point us to the corresponding guideline?
You never know how big the DB is. I saw migration that lasted several
hours.
Yes and the DB on the internal OSH instance has always been migrated this way.
As far as I know there is no timeout for executing %post.
You do not want to block rpm upgrades because of db upgrade. Or even
worse, fail because of that.
Why?
1. We want application upgrades to run unattendedly where possible.
2. If we fail to upgrade our RPM-packaged application, we want to know about it
rather sooner than later.
This should be separate step, outside of rpm.
It could be done as a separate step. But what advantage would it bring to the
OSH admin? Why should they manually do something that can be done fully
automatically during the installation?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275304
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
1:58 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2275304] Review Request: osh - Static and Dynamic Analysis as a
Service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275304
Miroslav Suchý <msuchy(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|needinfo?(msuchy(a)redhat.com |
|) |
--- Comment #4 from Miroslav Suchý <msuchy(a)redhat.com> ---
Is there a better way to log what happened in %post?
echo foo >> /var/log/osh/something.log
Could you please point us to the corresponding guideline?
No. It is not written anywhere. I am just sharing my 15+ experience with DB
maintenance. Feel free to ask any other experienced db admin. Or feel free to
ignore and learn it the hard way, one day.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275304
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
3:40 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2275304] Review Request: osh - Static and Dynamic Analysis as a
Service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275304
--- Comment #5 from Kamil Dudka <kdudka(a)redhat.com> ---
The interpreter of %post has its stdout/stderr redirected to
`/var/log/osh/hub/post-install-%{name}-%{version}-%{release}.log`:
https://github.com/openscanhub/openscanhub/blob/e800d57100abdc802ab742dee...
Hence any output produced in %post is written to a log file as you suggest.
The pair of commands you quoted just records a timestamp in the log file. Here
is an example of how the content of the log file looks like:
# cat
/var/log/osh/hub/post-install-osh-0.9.7.20240405.175258.ga916dec.pr_228-1.el9.log
>> Fri, 05 Apr 2024 18:05:20 +0200
+ umask 0026
+ test -e /var/lib/osh/hub/secret_key
+ pg_isready -h localhost
localhost:5432 - accepting connections
+ /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/osh/hub/manage.py migrate
Operations to perform:
Apply all migrations: admin, auth, contenttypes, hub, kobo_auth, scan,
sessions, sites, stats, upload, waiving, xmlrpc
Running migrations:
No migrations to apply.
+ '[' 2 -eq 1 ']'
>> Mon, 08 Apr 2024 15:10:29 +0200
+ umask 0026
+ test -e /var/lib/osh/hub/secret_key
+ pg_isready -h localhost
localhost:5432 - accepting connections
+ /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/osh/hub/manage.py migrate
Operations to perform:
Apply all migrations: admin, auth, contenttypes, hub, kobo_auth, scan,
sessions, sites, stats, upload, waiving, xmlrpc
Running migrations:
No migrations to apply.
+ '[' 2 -eq 1 ']'
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275304
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
2:37 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2275304] Review Request: osh - Static and Dynamic Analysis as a
Service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275304
--- Comment #6 from Miroslav Suchý <msuchy(a)redhat.com> ---
The interpreter of %post has its stdout/stderr redirected to
`/var/log/osh/hub/post-install-%{name}-%{version}-%{release}.log`:
Ahh. I see now. This is quite an ugly hack. But ok.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275304
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
7:44 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2275304] Review Request: osh - Static and Dynamic Analysis as a
Service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275304
--- Comment #7 from Siteshwar Vashisht <svashisht(a)redhat.com> ---
https://github.com/openscanhub/openscanhub/pull/259/files
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275304
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
9:48 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2275304] Review Request: osh - Static and Dynamic Analysis as a
Service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275304
Siteshwar Vashisht <svashisht(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |needinfo?(msuchy(a)redhat.com
| |)
--- Comment #8 from Siteshwar Vashisht <svashisht(a)redhat.com> ---
It would be easier for me to make changes before merging PR in comment 7.
Please review it on GitHub.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275304
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
5:05 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2275304] Review Request: osh - Static and Dynamic Analysis as a
Service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275304
--- Comment #9 from Siteshwar Vashisht <svashisht(a)redhat.com> ---
Spec URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@openscanhub/devel/fed...
SRPM URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@openscanhub/devel/fed...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275304
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
4:18 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2275304] Review Request: osh - Static and Dynamic Analysis as a
Service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275304
Miroslav Suchý <msuchy(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |msuchy(a)redhat.com
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags|needinfo?(msuchy(a)redhat.com |fedora-review?
|) |
--- Comment #10 from Miroslav Suchý <msuchy(a)redhat.com> ---
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Permissions on files are set properly.
Note: See rpmlint output
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_file_permissions
- 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.
Note: License file LICENSE-SELECT2.md is not marked as %license
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
- 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 osh-worker, osh-hub
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets
- license file must be installed
- there is no owner of /etc/osh directory
Should:
- note that usually the order of section is %prep, %build, %install, all
scriptlet, all %files section. Your style of mixing %files and scriptlets make
it hard for me to read the spec file.
- when using tarball from GH then you should specify full URL in URL tag. See
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_tag...
- the tarball has test, can it be run in %check?
- instead of cp -R you want to use cp -aR (and I think the R is not needed at
all).
===== 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.
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/osh
[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.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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.
[x]: 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:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: 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]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
rpmlint warning - and I removed all that are not relevant. But these remaining
should be addressed:
osh-hub-conf-devel.noarch: W: python-bytecode-without-source
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/osh/hub/__pycache__/settings_local.ci.cpython-312.opt-1.pyc
osh-hub-conf-devel.noarch: W: python-bytecode-without-source
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/osh/hub/__pycache__/settings_local.ci.cpython-312.pyc
osh-worker.noarch: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/osh-worker 754
osh-hub-conf-devel.noarch: E: non-readable
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/osh/hub/__pycache__/settings_local.ci.cpython-312.opt-1.pyc
640
osh-hub-conf-devel.noarch: E: non-readable
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/osh/hub/__pycache__/settings_local.ci.cpython-312.pyc
640
osh-hub-conf-devel.noarch: E: non-readable
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/osh/hub/__pycache__/settings_local.cpython-312.opt-1.pyc
640
osh-hub-conf-devel.noarch: E: non-readable
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/osh/hub/__pycache__/settings_local.cpython-312.pyc
640
osh-hub.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/osh/hub/scripts/osh-xmlrpc-client.py 644
/usr/bin/env python3
osh-hub.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/osh/hub/scripts/umb-emit.py 644 /usr/bin/env
python3
osh-hub-conf-devel.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/osh/hub/__pycache__/settings_local.ci.cpython-312.opt-1.pyc
osh-hub-conf-devel.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/osh/hub/__pycache__/settings_local.ci.cpython-312.pyc
osh-hub-conf-devel.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/osh/hub/__pycache__/settings_local.cpython-312.opt-1.pyc
osh-hub-conf-devel.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/osh/hub/__pycache__/settings_local.cpython-312.pyc
osh-hub-conf-devel.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/osh/hub/settings_local.py
osh-client.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary covscan
osh-client.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary osh-cli
osh-hub.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary osh-retention
osh-hub.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary osh-stats
osh-worker.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary osh-worker
osh-client.noarch: W: no-documentation
osh-common.noarch: W: no-documentation
osh-hub.noarch: W: no-documentation
osh-hub-conf-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
osh-worker.noarch: W: no-documentation
osh-worker-conf-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
osh-hub.noarch: W: log-files-without-logrotate ['/var/log/osh']
osh-worker.noarch: W: log-files-without-logrotate ['/var/log/osh']
osh.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
openscanhub-1.0.0.20240419.115116.g843b9dd.tar.gz
osh-hub-conf-devel.noarch: E: hardlink-across-config-files
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/osh/hub/__pycache__/settings_local.ci.cpython-312.pyc
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/osh/hub/__pycache__/settings_local.ci.cpython-312.opt-1.pyc
osh-hub-conf-devel.noarch: E: hardlink-across-config-files
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/osh/hub/__pycache__/settings_local.cpython-312.pyc
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/osh/hub/__pycache__/settings_local.cpython-312.opt-1.pyc
osh-hub.noarch: W: files-duplicate
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/osh/hub/static/Add2_32.png
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/osh/hub/static-assets/Add2_32.png
osh-hub.noarch: W: files-duplicate
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/osh/hub/static/Add_32.png
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/osh/hub/static-assets/Add_32.png
osh-hub.noarch: W: files-duplicate
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/osh/hub/static/Document_content_32.png
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/osh/hub/static-assets/Document_content_32.png
osh-hub.noarch: W: files-duplicate
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/osh/hub/static/Message_log_32.png
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/osh/hub/static-assets/Message_log_32.png
osh-hub.noarch: W: files-duplicate
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/osh/hub/static/Ok_32.png
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/osh/hub/static-assets/Ok_32.png
osh-hub.noarch: W: files-duplicate
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/osh/hub/static/Warning_32.png
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/osh/hub/static-assets/Warning_32.png
osh-hub.noarch: W: files-duplicate
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/osh/hub/static/css/redhat.css
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/osh/hub/static-assets/css/redhat.css
osh-hub.noarch: W: files-duplicate
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/osh/hub/static/admin/js/vendor/select2/LICENSE.md
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/osh/hub/static/admin/css/vendor/select2/LICENSE-SELECT2.md
osh-hub.noarch: W: empty-%postun
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275304
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
8:50 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2275304] Review Request: osh - Static and Dynamic Analysis as a
Service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275304
Siteshwar Vashisht <svashisht(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |needinfo?(msuchy(a)redhat.com
| |)
--- Comment #11 from Siteshwar Vashisht <svashisht(a)redhat.com> ---
SPEC:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/packit/openscanhub-ope...
SRPM:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/packit/openscanhub-ope...
PR: https://github.com/openscanhub/openscanhub/pull/261/files
Please review the changes directly there.
Issues:
=======
- Permissions on files are set properly.
Note: See rpmlint output
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_file_permissions
I fixed some of them. Others are needed to keep the current deployment working.
Please see comments on the spec file.
- 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.
Note: License file LICENSE-SELECT2.md is not marked as %license
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
This is from a dependency. I would skip listing it.
- 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 osh-worker, osh-hub
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets
It is invoked as expected.
- license file must be installed
Fixed.
- there is no owner of /etc/osh directory
It is owned by `osh-common` package.
Should:
- note that usually the order of section is %prep, %build, %install, all
scriptlet, all %files section. Your style of mixing %files and scriptlets
make it hard for me to read the spec file.
I could take that as a separate issue. I would avoid doing it now to make it
easy to do reviews.
- when using tarball from GH then you should specify full URL in URL
tag.
See
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/
#_tag_example
It was removed by PackIt. It should be fixed now.
- the tarball has test, can it be run in %check?
I could take that as a separate issue.
- instead of cp -R you want to use cp -aR (and I think the R is not
needed
at all).
Fixed.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275304
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
6:52 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2275304] Review Request: osh - Static and Dynamic Analysis as a
Service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275304
--- Comment #12 from Siteshwar Vashisht <svashisht(a)redhat.com> ---
SPEC:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@openscanhub/devel/fed...
SRPM:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@openscanhub/devel/fed...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275304
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
9:47 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2275304] Review Request: osh - Static and Dynamic Analysis as a
Service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275304
--- Comment #13 from Siteshwar Vashisht <svashisht(a)redhat.com> ---
We discussed this issue with msuchy and kdudka and below items need to be
resolved:
- The settings configuration file from django should move under `/etc`.
- Exclude the `.py*` files.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275304
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
11:12 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2275304] Review Request: osh - Static and Dynamic Analysis as a
Service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275304
Miroslav Suchý <msuchy(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |msuchy(a)redhat.com
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #15 from Miroslav Suchý <msuchy(a)redhat.com> ---
We were talking in GH issue. Taking again.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275304
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
4:46 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2275304] Review Request: osh - Static and Dynamic Analysis as a
Service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275304
--- Comment #16 from Siteshwar Vashisht <svashisht(a)redhat.com> ---
SPEC:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/%40openscanhub/devel/f...
SRPM:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/%40openscanhub/devel/f...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275304
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
5 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2275304] Review Request: osh - Static and Dynamic Analysis as a
Service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275304
Fedora Review Service <fedora-review-bot(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
URL| |https://github.com/openscan
| |hub/openscanhub/
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Review Service <fedora-review-bot(a)fedoraproject.org>
---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7495203
(succeeded)
Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-...
Found issues:
- License file LICENSE-SELECT2.md is not marked as %license
Read more:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidel...
- Systemd service file(s) in osh-worker, osh-hub
Read more:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_sc...
Please know that there can be false-positives.
---
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.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275304
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
7:19 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2275304] Review Request: osh - Static and Dynamic Analysis as a
Service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275304
Miroslav Suchý <msuchy(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #18 from Miroslav Suchý <msuchy(a)redhat.com> ---
APPROVED
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275304
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
5:41 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2275304] Review Request: osh - Static and Dynamic Analysis as a
Service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275304
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions
<fedora-admin-xmlrpc(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions
<fedora-admin-xmlrpc(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/osh
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275304
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
6:06 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2275304] Review Request: osh - Static and Dynamic Analysis as a
Service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275304
Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
FEDORA-2024-c5a16638c9 (osh-1.0.0.20240523.115004.g305cd56-1.fc40) has been
submitted as an update to Fedora 40.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-c5a16638c9
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275304
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
6:06 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2275304] Review Request: osh - Static and Dynamic Analysis as a
Service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275304
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
FEDORA-2024-04aa4e4ca8 (osh-1.0.0.20240523.115004.g305cd56-1.fc39) has been
submitted as an update to Fedora 39.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-04aa4e4ca8
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275304
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
9:09 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2275304] Review Request: osh - Static and Dynamic Analysis as a
Service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275304
Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
FEDORA-2024-04aa4e4ca8 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-2024-04aa4e4ca8 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-04aa4e4ca8
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275304
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
9:23 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2275304] Review Request: osh - Static and Dynamic Analysis as a
Service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275304
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
FEDORA-2024-c5a16638c9 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 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-c5a16638c9 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-c5a16638c9
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275304
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
6
days inactive
51
days old
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
22 comments
1 participants
participants (1)
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com