https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2415640
Ben Beasley <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST --- Comment #3 from Ben Beasley <[email protected]> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated The spec file is generated using rust2rpm with the provided configuration file, simplifying the review. I noticed a few mentions of the Brainpool curves and recalled that these have historically been a source of legal / IP issues. These have been resolved, https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-legal-docs/-/merge_requests/296, and in any case I verified that this crate doesn’t actually implement any algorithms, only exposes the implementations in OpenSSL, so there can’t be any concerns of that nature in this package. The patches are well-documented; the downstream-only patches are appropriate to do downstream-only; and all changes appear to be correct and to do what they claim to do. Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ N/A: This is a Rust library, and any C/C++ compiler dependency is taken care of via the crate(bindgen) dependency. - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/ossl-1.3.1/LICENSE-2.0.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files Not a serious problem; due to reasonable design decisions in rust2rpm. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0". 21 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2415640-rust-ossl/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: 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]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: 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]: 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 ===== 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust- ossl-devel , rust-ossl+default-devel , rust-ossl+dummy-integrity-devel , rust-ossl+dynamic-devel , rust-ossl+fips-devel , rust-ossl+log-devel , rust-ossl+ossl320-devel , rust-ossl+ossl350-devel , rust- ossl+rfc9580-devel [x]: Package functions as described. (tests pass) [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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=139067274 [x]: %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: [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 ------- Checking: rust-ossl-devel-1.3.1-1.fc44.noarch.rpm rust-ossl+default-devel-1.3.1-1.fc44.noarch.rpm rust-ossl+dummy-integrity-devel-1.3.1-1.fc44.noarch.rpm rust-ossl+dynamic-devel-1.3.1-1.fc44.noarch.rpm rust-ossl+fips-devel-1.3.1-1.fc44.noarch.rpm rust-ossl+log-devel-1.3.1-1.fc44.noarch.rpm rust-ossl+ossl320-devel-1.3.1-1.fc44.noarch.rpm rust-ossl+ossl350-devel-1.3.1-1.fc44.noarch.rpm rust-ossl+rfc9580-devel-1.3.1-1.fc44.noarch.rpm rust-ossl-1.3.1-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpymhwche8')] checks: 32, packages: 10 rust-ossl-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-ossl.src: W: description-shorter-than-summary 10 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 55 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 32, packages: 9 rust-ossl-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 9 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 51 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/ossl/1.3.1/download#/ossl-1.3.1.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9904e51904eb47d8e09951565bdc36a684eb5dc699b438ad394bec211d539c54 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9904e51904eb47d8e09951565bdc36a684eb5dc699b438ad394bec211d539c54 Requires -------- rust-ossl-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(bindgen/default) >= 0.71.0 with crate(bindgen/default) < 0.73.0~) (crate(cfg-if/default) >= 1.0.0 with crate(cfg-if/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(getrandom/default) >= 0.3.0 with crate(getrandom/default) < 0.4.0~) (crate(libc/default) >= 0.2.151 with crate(libc/default) < 0.3.0~) (crate(pkg-config/default) >= 0.3.0 with crate(pkg-config/default) < 0.4.0~) cargo pkgconfig(openssl) rust-ossl+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(ossl) rust-ossl+dummy-integrity-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(ossl) rust-ossl+dynamic-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(ossl) rust-ossl+fips-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(ossl) crate(ossl/ossl350) rust-ossl+log-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(log) >= 0.4.27 with crate(log) < 0.5.0~) (crate(log/std) >= 0.4.27 with crate(log/std) < 0.5.0~) (crate(vsprintf/default) >= 2.0.0 with crate(vsprintf/default) < 3.0.0~) cargo crate(ossl) rust-ossl+ossl320-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(ossl) rust-ossl+ossl350-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(ossl) rust-ossl+rfc9580-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(ossl) Provides -------- rust-ossl-devel: crate(ossl) rust-ossl-devel rust-ossl+default-devel: crate(ossl/default) rust-ossl+default-devel rust-ossl+dummy-integrity-devel: crate(ossl/dummy-integrity) rust-ossl+dummy-integrity-devel rust-ossl+dynamic-devel: crate(ossl/dynamic) rust-ossl+dynamic-devel rust-ossl+fips-devel: crate(ossl/fips) rust-ossl+fips-devel rust-ossl+log-devel: crate(ossl/log) rust-ossl+log-devel rust-ossl+ossl320-devel: crate(ossl/ossl320) rust-ossl+ossl320-devel rust-ossl+ossl350-devel: crate(ossl/ossl350) rust-ossl+ossl350-devel rust-ossl+rfc9580-devel: crate(ossl/rfc9580) rust-ossl+rfc9580-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2415640 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: fonts, Java, Perl, R, Python, SugarActivity, PHP, Haskell, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- 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=2415640 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202415640%23c3 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
