https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2075850
Bug ID: 2075850 Summary: Review Request: zeek - network analysis framework Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: marcor@fb.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/marcor/zeek/fedora-35-x86...
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/marcor/zeek/fedora-35-x86...
Description: Zeek is a powerful network analysis framework that is much different from the typical IDS you may know. While focusing on network security monitoring, Zeek provides a comprehensive platform for more general network traffic analysis as well. Well grounded in more than 15 years of research, Zeek has successfully bridged the traditional gap between academia and operations since its inception. Today, it is relied upon operationally in particular by many scientific environments for securing their cyberinfrastructure. Zeek's user community includes major universities, research labs, supercomputing centers, and open-science communities.
Fedora Account System Username: marcor
This is my first submission, so apologies in advance for my n00b mistakes.
Build was successful in copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/marcor/zeek/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2075850
Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |dcavalca@fb.com CC| |dcavalca@fb.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com --- Taking this review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2075850
--- Comment #2 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com --- This is failing to build on Rawhide: https://paste.centos.org/view/1a0986fb
/builddir/build/BUILD/zeek-4.2.0/src/script_opt/ZAM/Gen-ZAM.cc: In member function 'void TemplateInput::Gripe(const char*, const std::string&) const': /builddir/build/BUILD/zeek-4.2.0/src/script_opt/ZAM/Gen-ZAM.cc:1896:17: error: 'strlen' was not declared in this scope 1896 | int n = strlen(input_s); | ^~~~~~ /builddir/build/BUILD/zeek-4.2.0/src/script_opt/ZAM/Gen-ZAM.cc:7:1: note: 'strlen' is defined in header '<cstring>'; did you forget to '#include <cstring>'? 6 | #include <regex> +++ |+#include <cstring> 7 | /builddir/build/BUILD/zeek-4.2.0/src/script_opt/ZAM/Gen-ZAM.cc: In constructor 'ZAMGen::ZAMGen(int, char**)': /builddir/build/BUILD/zeek-4.2.0/src/script_opt/ZAM/Gen-ZAM.cc:1922:18: error: 'strcmp' was not declared in this scope 1922 | auto f = strcmp(file_name, "-") ? fopen(file_name, "r") : stdin; | ^~~~~~ /builddir/build/BUILD/zeek-4.2.0/src/script_opt/ZAM/Gen-ZAM.cc:1922:18: note: 'strcmp' is defined in header '<cstring>'; did you forget to '#include <cstring>'?
This looks like a missing include that's being triggered by GCC 12, and there's already an upstream fix for it in https://github.com/zeek/zeek/commit/acaa9ec01e00447b0deca37385f08797895b00b1 so it should be enough to backport that as a patch.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2075850
--- Comment #3 from Marco Rizzi marcor@fb.com ---
good catch and thanks a lot for the pointer!
I have put together a patch and run a rawhide build on copr:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/marcor/zeek/fedora-rawhid...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2075850
--- Comment #4 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com --- Whenever you update this, you'll want to repeat the URLs again so that fedora-review can pick them up, like this:
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/marcor/zeek/fedora-rawhid... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/marcor/zeek/fedora-rawhid...
Changelog: - Backported GCC 12 compatibility patch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2075850
--- Comment #5 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - No %config files under /usr. Note: %config /usr/share/zeek/site/local.zeek See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_configuration_files - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 1228800 bytes in 3 files. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_documentation
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "ISC License BSD 2-Clause License", "BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution 4.0", "*No copyright* [generated file]", "*No copyright* NTP License", "University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "ISC License", "*No copyright* University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License", "MIT License JSON License BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* ISC License", "ISC License BSD 4-Clause License BSD 2-clause NetBSD License", "MIT License [generated file]", "BSD 4-Clause License", "BSD-4-Clause (University of California-Specific)", "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License 2.0 [generated file]", "Apache License 2.0", "BSD 2-Clause License", "BSD 1-Clause License", "BSD 3-Clause License Boost Software License 1.0", "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later", "MIT License", "Mozilla Public License 2.0 [generated file]", "*No copyright* Apache License", "BSD 3-Clause License [generated file]". 10306 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/2075850-zeek/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/zeek, /var/log/zeek [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/sysusers.d, /var/log/zeek, /usr/lib64/zeek [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. Note: No (noreplace) in %config /usr/share/zeek/site/local.zeek [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: 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. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package 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
===== 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in zeek- core , zeek-devel , zeek-libcaf , zeek-libcaf-devel , libbroker , libbroker-devel , libbinpac , zeekctl , zeek-zkg , zeek-btest , zeek- btest-data [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: 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: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 5713920 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Unversioned so-files -------------------- zeekctl: /usr/lib64/zeek/python/_SubnetTree.so zeekctl: /usr/lib64/zeek/python/broker/_broker.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://download.zeek.org/zeek-4.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8d9a028ca9fec7ad4a9e48a763e296052384cf402ea4cd371577bff183c27451 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8d9a028ca9fec7ad4a9e48a763e296052384cf402ea4cd371577bff183c27451
Requires -------- zeek-core (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/bash /usr/bin/python3 /usr/bin/sh config(zeek-core) ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libbinpac.so.0()(64bit) libbroker.so.4()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcaf_core.so.0.18.5()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libkrb5.so.3()(64bit) libkrb5.so.3(krb5_3_MIT)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmaxminddb.so.0()(64bit) libpcap.so.1()(64bit) libresolv.so.2()(64bit) libssl.so.3()(64bit) libssl.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.7)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
zeek-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh libbinpac.so.0()(64bit) libbroker-devel(x86-64) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libpcap-devel libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) openssl-devel rtld(GNU_HASH) zeek-libcaf-devel(x86-64) zlib-devel
zeek-libcaf (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcaf_core.so.0.18.5()(64bit) libcaf_io.so.0.18.5()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libssl.so.3()(64bit) libssl.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.13)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.7)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
zeek-libcaf-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libcaf_core.so.0.18.5()(64bit) libcaf_io.so.0.18.5()(64bit) libcaf_openssl.so.0.18.5()(64bit)
libbroker (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcaf_core.so.0.18.5()(64bit) libcaf_io.so.0.18.5()(64bit) libcaf_openssl.so.0.18.5()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
libbroker-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libbroker.so.4()(64bit)
libbinpac (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
zeekctl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash /usr/bin/python3 config(zeekctl) libbroker.so.4()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcaf_core.so.0.18.5()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libpcap.so.1()(64bit) libpython3.10.so.1.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.13)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.2)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) python3 rtld(GNU_HASH) zeek-core(x86-64)
zeek-zkg (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python3 zeek-btest(x86-64) zeek-core(x86-64) zeekctl(x86-64)
zeek-btest (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash /usr/bin/python3 python3 zeek-btest-data
zeek-btest-data (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
zeek-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
zeek-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- zeek-core: config(zeek-core) group(zeek) zeek-core zeek-core(x86-64)
zeek-devel: zeek-devel zeek-devel(x86-64)
zeek-libcaf: libcaf_core.so.0.18.5()(64bit) libcaf_io.so.0.18.5()(64bit) libcaf_openssl.so.0.18.5()(64bit) zeek-libcaf zeek-libcaf(x86-64)
zeek-libcaf-devel: cmake(CAF) cmake(caf) zeek-libcaf-devel zeek-libcaf-devel(x86-64)
libbroker: libbroker libbroker(x86-64) libbroker.so.4()(64bit)
libbroker-devel: libbroker-devel libbroker-devel(x86-64)
libbinpac: libbinpac libbinpac(x86-64) libbinpac.so.0()(64bit)
zeekctl: config(zeekctl) zeekctl zeekctl(x86-64)
zeek-zkg: zeek-zkg zeek-zkg(x86-64)
zeek-btest: zeek-btest zeek-btest(x86-64)
zeek-btest-data: zeek-btest-data
zeek-debuginfo: zeek-debuginfo zeek-debuginfo(x86-64)
zeek-debugsource: zeek-debugsource zeek-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2075850 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Python, fonts, Haskell, Perl, Ocaml, PHP, R, Java, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2075850
--- Comment #6 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com --- There's a few things to sort out:
- No %config files under /usr. Note: %config /usr/share/zeek/site/local.zeek [!]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. Note: No (noreplace) in %config /usr/share/zeek/site/local.zeek
Is this actually a config file, meaning something the user is supposed/expected to edit? If it is, we should figure out if we can move it under /etc (and mark it as %config(noreplace)); if it isn't, it shouldn't be marked as %confg
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
I think this is a false positive? The only actual documentation I see is three text files, that doesn't warrant a dedicated package IMO.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
These two are related; basically this thing is bundling a bunch of external libraries like rapidjson, which is generally frowned upon. Long term, we should figure out if we can unbundle these, but for now please add bundled() provides for them per https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling and updated the License: field accordingly.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/zeek, /var/log/zeek [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/sysusers.d, /var/log/zeek, /usr/lib64/zeek
Add %dir entries for /var/log/zeek and /usr/lib64/zeek and add a Requires: systemd for /usr/lib/sysusers.d
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
Add a comment before the patch with the URL it comes from
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Not a blocker, but if this package has tests it can run at build time, it'd be good to add a %check section to the spec (for cmake-based projects, usually it's enough to call %ctest if they're rigged up properly).
[!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.
Consider making a zeek-data noarch subpackage for the stuff under /usr/share/zeek
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2075850
--- Comment #7 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com --- For the license stuff, you can see the licensecheck result at https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/marcor/zeek/fedora-rawhid...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2075850
--- Comment #8 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com --- One more nit I just noticed: in zeek-devel, you're repeating the description, which isn't needed as you're already using the macro; you can delete the first paragraph there.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2075850
--- Comment #9 from Marco Rizzi marcor@fb.com --- Sorry Davide for the long delay, I made some changes, let's give fedora-review another run to see what's still pending.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/marcor/zeek/fedora-rawhid... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/marcor/zeek/fedora-rawhid...
Here are my comments:
- No %config files under /usr.
Note: %config /usr/share/zeek/site/local.zeek [!]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. Note: No (noreplace) in %config /usr/share/zeek/site/local.zeek
Is this actually a config file, meaning something the user is supposed/expected to edit? If it is, we should figure out if we can move it under /etc (and mark it as %config(noreplace)); if it isn't, it shouldn't be marked as %confg
Looking at the zeek documentation, this is classified as a script file, so I have removed the %config
reference: https://docs.zeek.org/en/master/quickstart.html#filesystem-walkthrough
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
I think this is a false positive? The only actual documentation I see is three text files, that doesn't warrant a dedicated package IMO.
I have removed the "CHANGES" text file from the %doc statement, that file alone is more than 1MB.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
These two are related; basically this thing is bundling a bunch of external libraries like rapidjson, which is generally frowned upon. Long term, we should figure out if we can unbundle these, but for now please add bundled() provides for them per https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling and updated the License: field accordingly.
I have added "bundled()" for the short term
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/zeek, /var/log/zeek [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/sysusers.d, /var/log/zeek, /usr/lib64/zeek
Add %dir entries for /var/log/zeek and /usr/lib64/zeek and add a Requires: systemd for /usr/lib/sysusers.d
done that
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
Add a comment before the patch with the URL it comes from
done
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Not a blocker, but if this package has tests it can run at build time, it'd be good to add a %check section to the spec (for cmake-based projects, usually it's enough to call %ctest if they're rigged up properly).
I don't think I see tests that can run at build time.
[!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.
Consider making a zeek-data noarch subpackage for the stuff under /usr/share/zeek
I'm not sure if that's going to be possible, different packages write to /usr/share/zeek/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2075850
--- Comment #10 from Marco Rizzi marcor@fb.com --- let's try again:
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/marcor/zeek/fedora-rawhid... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/marcor/zeek/fedora-rawhid...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2075850
--- Comment #11 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "ISC License BSD 2-Clause License", "BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution 4.0", "*No copyright* [generated file]", "*No copyright* NTP License", "University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "ISC License", "*No copyright* University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License", "MIT License JSON License BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* ISC License", "ISC License BSD 4-Clause License BSD 2-clause NetBSD License", "MIT License [generated file]", "BSD 4-Clause License", "BSD-4-Clause (University of California-Specific)", "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License 2.0 [generated file]", "Apache License 2.0", "BSD 2-Clause License", "BSD 1-Clause License", "BSD 3-Clause License Boost Software License 1.0", "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later", "MIT License", "Mozilla Public License 2.0 [generated file]", "*No copyright* Apache License", "BSD 3-Clause License [generated file]". 10306 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/2075850-zeek/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/zeek [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. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: 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 194560 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package 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]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in zeek- core , zeek-devel , zeek-libcaf , zeek-libcaf-devel , libbroker , libbroker-devel , libbinpac , zeekctl , zeek-zkg , zeek-btest , zeek- btest-data [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: 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: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 4679680 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Unversioned so-files -------------------- zeekctl: /usr/lib64/zeek/python/_SubnetTree.so zeekctl: /usr/lib64/zeek/python/broker/_broker.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://download.zeek.org/zeek-4.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8d9a028ca9fec7ad4a9e48a763e296052384cf402ea4cd371577bff183c27451 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8d9a028ca9fec7ad4a9e48a763e296052384cf402ea4cd371577bff183c27451
Requires -------- zeek-core (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/bash /usr/bin/python3 /usr/bin/sh ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libbinpac.so.0()(64bit) libbroker.so.4()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcaf_core.so.0.18.5()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libkrb5.so.3()(64bit) libkrb5.so.3(krb5_3_MIT)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmaxminddb.so.0()(64bit) libpcap.so.1()(64bit) libresolv.so.2()(64bit) libssl.so.3()(64bit) libssl.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.7)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) systemd
zeek-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh libbinpac.so.0()(64bit) libbroker-devel(x86-64) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libpcap-devel libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) openssl-devel rtld(GNU_HASH) zeek-libcaf-devel(x86-64) zlib-devel
zeek-libcaf (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcaf_core.so.0.18.5()(64bit) libcaf_io.so.0.18.5()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libssl.so.3()(64bit) libssl.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.13)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.7)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
zeek-libcaf-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libcaf_core.so.0.18.5()(64bit) libcaf_io.so.0.18.5()(64bit) libcaf_openssl.so.0.18.5()(64bit)
libbroker (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcaf_core.so.0.18.5()(64bit) libcaf_io.so.0.18.5()(64bit) libcaf_openssl.so.0.18.5()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
libbroker-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libbroker.so.4()(64bit)
libbinpac (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
zeekctl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash /usr/bin/python3 config(zeekctl) libbroker.so.4()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcaf_core.so.0.18.5()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libpcap.so.1()(64bit) libpython3.10.so.1.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.13)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.2)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) python3 rtld(GNU_HASH) zeek-core(x86-64)
zeek-zkg (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python3 zeek-btest(x86-64) zeek-core(x86-64) zeekctl(x86-64)
zeek-btest (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash /usr/bin/python3 python3 zeek-btest-data
zeek-btest-data (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
zeek-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
zeek-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- zeek-core: group(zeek) zeek-core zeek-core(x86-64)
zeek-devel: zeek-devel zeek-devel(x86-64)
zeek-libcaf: bundled(libcaf) libcaf_core.so.0.18.5()(64bit) libcaf_io.so.0.18.5()(64bit) libcaf_openssl.so.0.18.5()(64bit) zeek-libcaf zeek-libcaf(x86-64)
zeek-libcaf-devel: bundled(libcaf-devel) cmake(CAF) cmake(caf) zeek-libcaf-devel zeek-libcaf-devel(x86-64)
libbroker: libbroker libbroker(x86-64) libbroker.so.4()(64bit)
libbroker-devel: libbroker-devel libbroker-devel(x86-64)
libbinpac: libbinpac libbinpac(x86-64) libbinpac.so.0()(64bit)
zeekctl: config(zeekctl) zeekctl zeekctl(x86-64)
zeek-zkg: zeek-zkg zeek-zkg(x86-64)
zeek-btest: zeek-btest zeek-btest(x86-64)
zeek-btest-data: zeek-btest-data
zeek-debuginfo: zeek-debuginfo zeek-debuginfo(x86-64)
zeek-debugsource: zeek-debugsource zeek-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2075850 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, Ocaml, Python, R, PHP, fonts, Haskell, SugarActivity, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2075850
--- Comment #12 from Marco Rizzi marcor@fb.com ---
EPEL8 spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/marcor/zeek/epel-8-x86_64... EPEL8 src rpm URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/marcor/zeek/epel-8-x86_64...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2075850
--- Comment #13 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com --- For the automation to work properly please keep the wording around the links the same.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/marcor/zeek/fedora-rawhid... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/marcor/zeek/epel-8-x86_64...
The License entry
License: BSD, Apache License 2.0, BSD 1-Clause License, BSD 2-Clause License, BSD 3-Clause License, BSD 3-Clause License Boost Software License 1.0, BSD 4-Clause License, BSD-4-Clause (University of California-Specific), GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later, ISC License, ISC License BSD 2-Clause License, ISC License BSD 4-Clause License BSD 2-clause NetBSD License, MIT License, MIT License JSON License BSD 3-Clause License, University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License
isn't using the correct tags. Change it to:
License: ASL 2.0 and Boost and BSD and ISC and LGPLv3+ and MIT and NCSA
which should be equivalent if I'm not mistaken. Also, after the BuildRequires you need to add Provides for all the bundled libraries:
Provides: bundled(bifcl) Provides: bundled(btest) Provides: bundled(netcontrol-connectors) Provides: bundled(rapidjson) Provides: bundled(zeek-client) Provides: bundled(binpac) Provides: bundled(highwayhash) Provides: bundled(package-manager) Provides: bundled(zeek-archiver) Provides: bundled(zeekctl) Provides: bundled(broker) Provides: bundled(libkqueue) Provides: bundled(paraglob) Provides: bundled(zeek-aux)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2075850
--- Comment #14 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com --- After discussing with marcor and salimma out of band, we're going to limit this package to EPEL8 and EPEL9 initially. zeek currently fails to build in Rawhide due to a Python 3.11 compatibility issue (see https://github.com/zeek/broker/issues/251). Once that is resolved upstream, we will build it for Fedora releases as well.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2075850
--- Comment #15 from Marco Rizzi marcor@fb.com --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/marcor/zeek/epel-8-x86_64... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/marcor/zeek/epel-8-x86_64...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2075850
Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #16 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com --- I think this is good to go now. The licensing matches, and while the large amount of bundled dependencies is unfortunate, it doesn't look like they can be reasonably unbundled for the time being.
PACKAGE APPROVED
Marco, I have sponsored you into the packager group, welcome! You should now be able to request a repository for this package, which you can do by by running:
fedpkg request-repo zeek 2075850 fedpkg request-branch --repo zeek epel8 fedpkg request-branch --repo zeek epel9
Once the repo has been created you'll be able to import and build zeek.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2075850
--- Comment #17 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/zeek
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2075850
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-cdcffd2257 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-cdcffd2257
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2075850
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-bd5fa7dd34 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-bd5fa7dd34
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2075850
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-cdcffd2257 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-cdcffd2257
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2075850
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-bd5fa7dd34 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-bd5fa7dd34
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2075850
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2022-07-12 03:03:36
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-bd5fa7dd34 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2075850
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-cdcffd2257 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org