https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2468312
Cristian Le <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST --- Comment #48 from Cristian Le <[email protected]> --- Thanks, all LGTM now. A request for sponshorship ticket should be automatically created after this, but feel free to drop a comment on the mailing list or #devel matrix room. And finally thank you for sticking up with the review to the very end. For the sponsor (or other reviewers) 2 topics that I am not sure about: - Is it ok for the Obsoletes to be catching any 1.x.x that are not packaged in Fedora? - Otherwise the replacement of `pwsafe` looks sane to me, but more eyes are appreciated --- Response to the previous reply > but there are other pwsafe rpm packages in third part repos with version > numbers of 1.x.x That is a bit of information that would have been useful earlier. I do not think it is our place to obsolete the third-party packaging as we cannot carry their context, e.g. maybe it is built with different cmake flags on purpose. My gut feeling is that we should not obsolete those, but I will leave it to the sponsor to handle. > Package name should stay with 'passwordsafe' since that is what upstream is > using. Sure, but there is also an argument for pwsafe as that is the upstream git namespace. You can totally have the srpm name be `pwsafe` and the binary rpm to be `passwordsafe` (very common in rust crates with binaries). But I don't have enough context to make an informed decision there. > # kill off executable bit on all files > chmod -R -x+X . It is an overkill, but ultimately not a blocker for me. Just that this should be submitted to upstream as a PR. --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/cle/FedoraRPMs/2468312-passwordsafe/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ (comment: Checked this manually, looks like false-positive) ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [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* MIT License", "MIT License", "*No copyright* Artistic License 2.0", "BSD 2-Clause License", "Artistic License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "BSD 3-Clause License". 2855 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/cle/FedoraRPMs/2468312-passwordsafe/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [?]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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. [x]: 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]: 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]: 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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]: 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: [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]: 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /home/cle/FedoraRPMs/2468312-passwordsafe/srpm- unpacked/passwordsafe.spec See: (this test has no URL) (comment: see false-positive above) [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1320960 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: passwordsafe-1.24.0^20260604git1d41f7b-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm passwordsafe-doc-1.24.0^20260604git1d41f7b-1.fc45.noarch.rpm passwordsafe-1.24.0^20260604git1d41f7b-1.fc45.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/tmp0ljyr182')] checks: 32, packages: 3 passwordsafe.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch2: remove-unreferenced-libmagic.patch passwordsafe.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch3: bomless-utf8-output.patch passwordsafe.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch4: https://github.com/pwsafe/pwsafe/pull/1807.patch passwordsafe.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided pwsafe passwordsafe.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pwsafe-cli passwordsafe.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.24.0-1 ['1.24.0^20260604git1d41f7b-1.fc45', '1.24.0^20260604git1d41f7b-1'] 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.3 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: passwordsafe-debuginfo-1.24.0^20260604git1d41f7b-1.fc45.x86_64.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/tmp9d1lh2do')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.8 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.9.0 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: 3 passwordsafe.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided pwsafe passwordsafe.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pwsafe-cli passwordsafe.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.24.0-1 ['1.24.0^20260604git1d41f7b-1.fc45', '1.24.0^20260604git1d41f7b-1'] 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 22 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/pwsafe/pwsafe/archive/1d41f7b/pwsafe-1d41f7b.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1b639966889eba3c79588c608dfec5d9bcd892c5988d62a04fc31d3a3ea7ed08 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cb6d82b33f7088e812d6ab556978daf3afb97d806fdd86db03ed19ff7d17ee03 diff -r also reports differences (comment: confirmed they are different checksums. Ran pkgdiff and other stuff on it, but did not see bit-wise differences, the diff must me in the metadata) Requires -------- passwordsafe (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): hicolor-icon-theme libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXtst.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcurl.so.4()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.4)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmagic.so.1()(64bit) libqrencode.so.4()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.2)(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) libuuid.so.1()(64bit) libuuid.so.1(UUID_1.0)(64bit) libwx_baseu-3.2.so.0()(64bit) libwx_baseu-3.2.so.0(WXU_3.2)(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_aui-3.2.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_aui-3.2.so.0(WXU_3.2)(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_core-3.2.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_core-3.2.so.0(WXU_3.2)(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_html-3.2.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_html-3.2.so.0(WXU_3.2)(64bit) libxerces-c-3.3.so()(64bit) libykpers-1.so.1()(64bit) libykpers-1.so.1(LIBYKPERS_1.0)(64bit) libykpers-1.so.1(LIBYKPERS_1.15)(64bit) libykpers-1.so.1(LIBYKPERS_1.4)(64bit) libykpers-1.so.1(LIBYKPERS_1.5)(64bit) libykpers-1.so.1(LIBYKPERS_1.7)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) passwordsafe-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): passwordsafe Provides -------- passwordsafe: application() application(pwsafe.desktop) bundled(pugixml) metainfo() metainfo(org.pwsafe.pwsafe.metainfo.xml) passwordsafe passwordsafe(x86-64) passwordsafe-doc: passwordsafe-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2468312 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, Ocaml, Python, Perl, SugarActivity, Haskell, Java, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- 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=2468312 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202468312%23c48 -- _______________________________________________ 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://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
