https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1990223
Bug ID: 1990223 Summary: Review Request: python-certauth - Simple Certificate Authority for MITM proxies Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dcavalca@fb.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-certauth/python-certauth.spe... SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-certauth/python-certauth-1.3...
Description:
This package provides a small library, built on top of pyOpenSSL, which allows for creating a custom certificate authority certificate, and generating on-demand dynamic host certs using that CA certificate. It is most useful for use with a man-in-the-middle HTTPS proxy, for example, for recording or replaying web content.
Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1990223
--- Comment #1 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=73310979
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1990223
Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(dcavalca@fb.com) | Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #3 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com --- Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-certauth/python-certauth.spe... SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-certauth/python-certauth-1.3...
Changelog: - switch to pyproject macros - backport upstream commit to fix broken tests
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review
Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com has canceled Package Review package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org's request for Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com's needinfo: Bug 1990223: Review Request: python-certauth - Simple Certificate Authority for MITM proxies https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1990223
--- Comment #3 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com --- Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-certauth/python-certauth.spe... SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-certauth/python-certauth-1.3... 1.fc37.src.rpm
Changelog: - switch to pyproject macros - backport upstream commit to fix broken tests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1990223
jasmin.marwad@gmail.com jasmin.marwad@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jasmin.marwad@gmail.com
--- Comment #4 from jasmin.marwad@gmail.com jasmin.marwad@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: 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. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* MIT License", "Unknown or generated". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jasmin/1990223-python-certauth/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 files. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: 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
Python: [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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 [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1990223
Wayne Sun gsun@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |gsun@redhat.com, | |mhroncok@redhat.com
--- Comment #5 from Wayne Sun gsun@redhat.com --- This is informal review as I'm not sponsored
1) [OPINION] For the major blocks start from %prep to the end, could you update using two empty lines rather than one line as in the fedora spec example: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_example_s...
The upstream is with MIT license and Modern Style with sublicense, the SPDX identifier in the spec is accurate: https://github.com/ikreymer/certauth/blob/master/LICENSE
With rpmlint check on the built rpm, srpm and spec, got one warning about manual page:
W: no-manual-page-for-binary certauth
# rpmlint results/python3-certauth-1.3.0-1.fc38.noarch.rpm =============================================== rpmlint session starts =============================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1
python3-certauth.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary certauth ================ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s ================
# rpmlint results/python-certauth-1.3.0-1.fc38.src.rpm =============================================== rpmlint session starts =============================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1
# rpmlint srpm/python-certauth.spec =============================================== rpmlint session starts =============================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1
================ 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s ================
Tested with the client:
$ certauth --help 5.7s Mon 28 Nov 2022 03:16:59 PM GMT usage: certauth [-h] [-c CERTNAME] [-n HOSTNAME] [-d CERTS_DIR] [-f] [-w] root_ca_cert
Certificate Authority Cert Maker Tools
positional arguments: root_ca_cert Path to existing or new root CA file
options: -h, --help show this help message and exit -c CERTNAME, --certname CERTNAME Name for root certificate -n HOSTNAME, --hostname HOSTNAME Hostname certificate to create -d CERTS_DIR, --certs-dir CERTS_DIR Directory for host certificates -f, --force Overwrite certificates if they already exist -w, --wildcard_cert add wildcard SAN to host: *.<host>, <host>
it have help info and the manual will be nice to have in upstream but not critical here. @Miro any comment?
The changelog is using %autochangelog macro, @Miro is this the practice?
The require info from the setup.py: https://github.com/ikreymer/certauth/blob/master/setup.py#L34
matches with:
Requires -------- python3-certauth (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.11dist(pyopenssl) python3.11dist(tldextract)
The fedora-review result and manual review: Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== 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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* MIT License", "Unknown or generated". [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [?]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 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]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: 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
Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: 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 [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
===== 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. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. [x]: %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: [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: pmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 1
python3-certauth.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary certauth 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/c/certauth/certauth-1.3.0.tar... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7862d5deff0b33d2fb28d36861ba63d91c82d700bfdfc4bd848a8711ca72b8fb CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7862d5deff0b33d2fb28d36861ba63d91c82d700bfdfc4bd848a8711ca72b8fb
Requires -------- python3-certauth (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.11dist(pyopenssl) python3.11dist(tldextract)
Provides -------- python3-certauth: python-certauth python3-certauth python3.11-certauth python3.11dist(certauth) python3dist(certauth)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1990223 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: fonts, SugarActivity, Haskell, C/C++, Perl, R, Java, Ocaml, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1990223
--- Comment #6 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com ---
it have help info and the manual will be nice to have in upstream but not critical here. @Miro any comment?
No comment. A manual page is not critical at all.
The changelog is using %autochangelog macro, @Miro is this the practice?
It is allowed, yes.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1990223
Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(davide@cavalca.na | |me) |
--- Comment #8 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-certauth/python-certauth.spe... SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-certauth/python-certauth-1.3...
Changelog: - rebuild for f40
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review
Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name has canceled Package Review package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org's request for Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name's needinfo: Bug 1990223: Review Request: python-certauth - Simple Certificate Authority for MITM proxies https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1990223
--- Comment #8 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-certauth/python-certauth.spe... SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-certauth/python-certauth-1.3... 1.fc40.src.rpm
Changelog: - rebuild for f40
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1990223
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6784936 (failed)
Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.
- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field
--- 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1990223
Michel Lind michel@michel-slm.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |michel@michel-slm.name Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1990223
Michel Lind michel@michel-slm.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(davide@cavalca.na | |me)
--- Comment #10 from Michel Lind michel@michel-slm.name --- (In reply to Davide Cavalca from comment #8)
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-certauth/python-certauth.spe... SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-certauth/python-certauth-1.3. 0-1.fc40.src.rpm
Changelog:
- rebuild for f40
this SRPM does not exist? (COPR build failed, when I tried running review manually I hit that issue)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1990223
Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(davide@cavalca.na | |me) |
--- Comment #11 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-certauth/python-certauth.spe... SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-certauth/python-certauth-1.3...
Changelog: - reupload f40 rebuild
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1990223
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6873909 (failed)
Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.
- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field
--- 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1990223
--- Comment #13 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-certauth/python-certauth.spe... SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-certauth/python-certauth-1.3...
Changelog: - rebuild for f41
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1990223
Michel Lind michel@michel-slm.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(davide@cavalca.na | |me)
--- Comment #14 from Michel Lind michel@michel-slm.name --- License missing, please ask upstream to include (or send a patch) and meanwhile source it from https://github.com/ikreymer/certauth
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1990223
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/ikreymer | |/certauth
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7027746 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org