https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816367

Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com

--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - Use install -p to keep timestamps:

install -pm 755

- Package is not installable:

DEBUG util.py:621: Error: DEBUG util.py:621: Problem: package patator-0.8-1.fc33.noarch requires python3-impacket, but none of the providers can be installed DEBUG util.py:621: - conflicting requests DEBUG util.py:621: - nothing provides pcapy needed by python3-impacket-0.9.20-3.fc32.noarch DEBUG util.py:623: (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages or '--nobest' to use not only best candidate packages)

There's a python3-pcapy bit no pcapy alone:

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pcapy/blob/master/f/pcapy.spec

As a maintainer of python3-impacket, you could fix the package maybe?

Package Review ==============

Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed

Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/

===== MUST items =====

Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GNU Lesser General Public License", "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v2)". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/patator/review- patator/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [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 30720 bytes in 1 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]: 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]: 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 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: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: 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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 2.1 starting (python version = 3.8.2)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins INFO: Signal handler active Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start: cleaning package manager metadata Finish: cleaning package manager metadata INFO: enabled ccache INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 2.1 INFO: Mock Version: 2.1 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/bob/packaging/review/patator/review-patator/results/patator-0.8-1.fc33.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/f33-candidate-x86_64/root/ --releasever 33 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk install /home/bob/packaging/review/patator/review-patator/results/patator-0.8-1.fc33.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts

Rpmlint ------- Checking: patator-0.8-1.fc33.noarch.rpm patator-0.8-1.fc33.src.rpm patator.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) forcer -> force, forces, forced patator.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US forcer -> force, forces, forced patator.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary patator patator.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) forcer -> force, forces, forced patator.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US forcer -> force, forces, forced 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816367 Bug 1816367 depends on bug 1816279, which changed state.

Bug 1816279 Summary: Review Request: python-cx-oracle - Python interface to Oracle https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816279

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE

Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review

Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch has canceled Package Review package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org's request for Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch's needinfo: Bug 1816367: Review Request: patator - A multi-purpose brute-forcer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816367

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816367

Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(mail@fabian-affol | |ter.ch) |

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816367

Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Status|NEW |CLOSED Last Closed| |2023-02-22 20:33:08