Bug#997016: closed by Bastian Germann (Re: Bug#997016: RFS: swtpm/0.7.0-rc2-1 [ITA] -- Libtpms-based TPM emulator)
Hi Bastian, Thank you for supporting it. I hope you are well. Best regards, Seunghun On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 10:06 AM Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: > > This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report > which was filed against the sponsorship-requests package: > > #997016: RFS: swtpm/0.7.0-1 [ITP] -- Libtpms-based TPM emulator > > It has been closed by Bastian Germann . > > Their explanation is attached below along with your original report. > If this explanation is unsatisfactory and you have not received a > better one in a separate message then please contact Bastian Germann > by > replying to this email. > > > -- > 997016: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=997016 > Debian Bug Tracking System > Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems > > > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Bastian Germann > To: 997016-d...@bugs.debian.org > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2021 02:03:10 +0100 > Subject: Re: Bug#997016: RFS: swtpm/0.7.0-rc2-1 [ITA] -- Libtpms-based TPM > emulator > Uploaded. Thank you! > > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Seunghun Han > To: Debian Bug Tracking System > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 20:33:38 +0900 > Subject: RFS: swtpm/0.7.0-rc2-1 [ITA] -- Libtpms-based TPM emulator > Package: sponsorship-requests > Severity: wishlist > > Dear mentors, > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "swtpm": > > * Package name: swtpm >Version : 0.7.0-rc2-1 >Upstream Author : Stefan Berger > * URL : https://github.com/stefanberger/swtpm > * License : BSD-3-clause > * Vcs : https://salsa.debian.org/kkamagui-guest/swtpm >Section : misc > > It builds those binary packages: > > swtpm - Libtpms-based TPM emulator > swtpm-dev - Include files for the TPM emulator's CUSE interface > swtpm-libs - Common libraries for TPM emulators > swtpm-tools - Tools for the TPM emulator > > To access further information about this package, please visit the > following URL: > > https://mentors.debian.net/package/swtpm/ > > Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: > > dget -x > https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/swtpm/swtpm_0.7.0-rc2-1.dsc > > Changes for the initial release: > > swtpm (0.7.0-rc2-1) unstable; urgency=medium > . >* New maintainer (Closes: #941199) >* Changed Standard-Version to 4.5.1 in debian/control >* Updated debhelper version to 13 in debian/control >* Added Rules-Requires-Root to debian/control >* Added Vcs-Browser and Vcs-Git to debian/control >* Converted debian/copyright to dep5-copyright format >* Added debian/watch file >* Fixed typos in source code and man pages > > Regards, > -- > Seunghun Han
Bug#997016: RFS: swtpm/0.7.0-rc2-1 [ITA] -- Libtpms-based TPM emulator
Control: tags -1 - moreinfo
Bug#997016: RFS: swtpm/0.7.0-rc2-1 [ITA] -- Libtpms-based TPM emulator
Hi Bastian, On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 2:29 PM Seunghun Han wrote: > > No, that can be done later. But I don't like the raised issue about the > > manpages sections. > > The *.conf and *.options belong to section 5 instead of 8. Please hand in a > > patch upstream and then > > import it as a quilt patch (if there is no upstream release in between). > I'm making a patch related to this issue. After pushing it to the > upstream, I will import it as a quilt patch. I have made a patch and sent it to the upstream. And I also included it as a quilt patch. > > The code is authored (mostly) by Stefan Berger but copyrighted by IBM. For > > the BSD-3-clause license, > > the copyright notices have to be documented, not the author notices. Please > > correct that in > > d/copyright. Also the copyright year seem to range from 2006 to 2021. > > > > configure.ac is CPL-licensed. Please document this in d/copyright. > I missed this point. Thank you, and I will also change them and > contact you soon. I have updated d/copyright according to your comments. If you have other ones, please let me know. The package [1] and the repository [2] were updated. Best regards, Seunghun [1]: https://mentors.debian.net/package/swtpm/ [2]: https://salsa.debian.org/debian/swtpm
Bug#997016: RFS: swtpm/0.7.0-rc2-1 [ITA] -- Libtpms-based TPM emulator
Hi Bastian, On Sun, Nov 7, 2021 at 6:03 AM Bastian Germann wrote: > No, that can be done later. But I don't like the raised issue about the > manpages sections. > The *.conf and *.options belong to section 5 instead of 8. Please hand in a > patch upstream and then > import it as a quilt patch (if there is no upstream release in between). I'm making a patch related to this issue. After pushing it to the upstream, I will import it as a quilt patch. > The code is authored (mostly) by Stefan Berger but copyrighted by IBM. For > the BSD-3-clause license, > the copyright notices have to be documented, not the author notices. Please > correct that in > d/copyright. Also the copyright year seem to range from 2006 to 2021. > > configure.ac is CPL-licensed. Please document this in d/copyright. I missed this point. Thank you, and I will also change them and contact you soon. Best regards, Seunghun
Bug#997016: RFS: swtpm/0.7.0-rc2-1 [ITA] -- Libtpms-based TPM emulator
Control: tags -1 moreinfo On Thu, 4 Nov 2021 17:35:23 +0900 Seunghun Han wrote: Please check the pipeline result below. https://salsa.debian.org/debian/swtpm/-/pipelines/310288 Anyway, there are still some problems with reprotest and cross-build. Should I solve them, too? No, that can be done later. But I don't like the raised issue about the manpages sections. The *.conf and *.options belong to section 5 instead of 8. Please hand in a patch upstream and then import it as a quilt patch (if there is no upstream release in between). The code is authored (mostly) by Stefan Berger but copyrighted by IBM. For the BSD-3-clause license, the copyright notices have to be documented, not the author notices. Please correct that in d/copyright. Also the copyright year seem to range from 2006 to 2021. configure.ac is CPL-licensed. Please document this in d/copyright. Else this looks good to me.
Bug#997016: RFS: swtpm/0.7.0-rc2-1 [ITA] -- Libtpms-based TPM emulator
> On Nov 3, 2021, at 19:30, Seunghun Han wrote:
>
>> I am also not sure if you are allowed to write in /tmp on package building.
>> I will check that.
> Everyone has write access right to /tmp directory, so I guess the
> package also has it.
I don’t think this is the cause of the failures, but shouldn’t this really be
using $TMPDIR? AFAIK temporary scratch space is not guaranteed to be /tmp.
Maybe in Bash you want something like ${TMPDIR:-/tmp}.
Bug#997016: RFS: swtpm/0.7.0-rc2-1 [ITA] -- Libtpms-based TPM emulator
Hi Bastian, On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 11:30 AM Seunghun Han wrote: > On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 6:43 AM Bastian Germann wrote: > > The failing build is on i386 and also fails natively on my i386 machine. > > It looks a bit like Y2K38 triggering... > I'm sorry. I missed the point that i386 means 32bit system. I agree > with your opinion about Y2K and should find the reason and the > solution. I found the reason for a failure in the i386 system. The certificate was made and valid until Dec 31 . But certtool program of the i386 system parsed the certification and showed it was valid until Dec 31 2037. It seemed a certtool problem and the limitation of the i386 system, not the problem of swtpm. So I updated the validation code of the test result like both could be accepted, then all builds were passed. Please check the pipeline result below. https://salsa.debian.org/debian/swtpm/-/pipelines/310288 Anyway, there are still some problems with reprotest and cross-build. Should I solve them, too? Best regards, Seunghun
Bug#997016: RFS: swtpm/0.7.0-rc2-1 [ITA] -- Libtpms-based TPM emulator
Hi Bastian, On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 6:43 AM Bastian Germann wrote: > Can you explain why it builds on amd64 when it is docker related? I'm sorry that I didn't explain it in detail. The previous build error occurred at GitLab runner, and I found it was a docker environment. To have the identical environment, I pulled the docker image of GitLab runner, built the package, and ran tests of it. Then some of the tests failed, and I thought some test cases didn't work in a container environment like docker. But, they work well in native, and I thought it could be a trivial issue. > The failing build is on i386 and also fails natively on my i386 machine. > It looks a bit like Y2K38 triggering... I'm sorry. I missed the point that i386 means 32bit system. I agree with your opinion about Y2K and should find the reason and the solution. > I am also not sure if you are allowed to write in /tmp on package building. I > will check that. Everyone has write access right to /tmp directory, so I guess the package also has it. Best regards, Seunghun
Bug#997016: RFS: swtpm/0.7.0-rc2-1 [ITA] -- Libtpms-based TPM emulator
On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 15:45:41 +0900 Seunghun Han wrote: Hi Bastian, On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 1:06 AM Bastian Germann wrote: > > Should I fix them by adding a new feature to detect the docker environment? > > That would be nice but is not necessary. If so, I would like to leave it. If you don't mind, would you support the swtpm package [1]? That's the version built from the debian/swtpm repository. Can you explain why it builds on amd64 when it is docker related? The failing build is on i386 and also fails natively on my i386 machine. It looks a bit like Y2K38 triggering... I am also not sure if you are allowed to write in /tmp on package building. I will check that.
Bug#997016: RFS: swtpm/0.7.0-rc2-1 [ITA] -- Libtpms-based TPM emulator
Hi Bastian, On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 1:06 AM Bastian Germann wrote: > > Should I fix them by adding a new feature to detect the docker environment? > > That would be nice but is not necessary. If so, I would like to leave it. If you don't mind, would you support the swtpm package [1]? That's the version built from the debian/swtpm repository. Best regards, Seunghun [1]: https://mentors.debian.net/package/swtpm/
Bug#997016: RFS: swtpm/0.7.0-rc2-1 [ITA] -- Libtpms-based TPM emulator
Control: tags -1 moreinfo On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 19:21:17 +0900 Seunghun Han wrote: > The build fails. See https://salsa.debian.org/debian/swtpm/-/jobs/2129890 I fixed it, and there is no more builded error now. However, some test cases needed native environment, not docker, so they failed. New pipeline result is below. https://salsa.debian.org/debian/swtpm/-/jobs/2136882 Should I fix them by adding a new feature to detect the docker environment? That would be nice but is not necessary.
Bug#997016: RFS: swtpm/0.7.0-rc2-1 [ITA] -- Libtpms-based TPM emulator
Hi Bastian, > I have created https://salsa.debian.org/debian/swtpm and granted you > maintainer access. Please use that repo from now on. Thank you for your help and giving an access right to debian/swtpm repo. > The upstream branch is a mix of upstream's git commits and gbp imports. > Please fix that if you know how to do it. > > The watch file still needs work. See the uversionmangle in Feri's comment. I just cleaned the debian/swtpm repo. Please check it and let me know if you have any comments. I also applied uversionmangle to the d/watch file. > The build fails. See https://salsa.debian.org/debian/swtpm/-/jobs/2129890 I fixed it, and there is no more builded error now. However, some test cases needed native environment, not docker, so they failed. New pipeline result is below. https://salsa.debian.org/debian/swtpm/-/jobs/2136882 Should I fix them by adding a new feature to detect the docker environment? Newest packages are also below. https://mentors.debian.net/package/swtpm/ Best regards, Seunghun
Bug#997016: RFS: swtpm/0.7.0-rc2-1 [ITA] -- Libtpms-based TPM emulator
Control: tags -1 moreinfo On Fri, 29 Oct 2021 22:23:48 +0200 Bastian Germann wrote: The watch file still needs work. See the uversionmangle in Feri's comment. The build fails. See https://salsa.debian.org/debian/swtpm/-/jobs/2129890 Please untag moreinfo when those are done.
Bug#997016: RFS: swtpm/0.7.0-rc2-1 [ITA] -- Libtpms-based TPM emulator
Seunghun Han writes: >>> swtpm - Libtpms-based TPM emulator >>> swtpm-dev - Include files for the TPM emulator's CUSE interface >>> swtpm-libs - Common libraries for TPM emulators >> >> Why do you deviate from the usual libswtpm-dev/libswtpm0 package names? >> Including the SO version in the package name enables installing >> incompatible versions side-by-side, which is useful. >> >> Also, shipping static libraries (like libswtpm_libtpms.a) is generally >> recommended against in Debian. Does this package warrant it? > > The upstream version already has some debian-related files, and I > changed them to adopt the package. The author of it wants to name it > like libswtpm0, so I used the name. The static libraries are also > involved in upstream debian files. Should I change the name like > libswtpm instead of libswtpm0 and remove static libraries from the > package? I questioned the package name, not the names of the shared object within. After a closer look, though, libswtpm_libtpms.so.0.0.0 looks more like an internal convenience library than something which other projects call into. If this is so, the package name loses its relevance, I wonder why it's packaged separately, even. Or why it isn't compiled straight into the single binary (swtpm) linked against it. >>> swtpm-tools - Tools for the TPM emulator >> >> Why do you put swtpm-create-tpmca, swtpm-create-user-config-files and >> swtpm-localca into /usr/share/swtpm instead of /usr/bin? (This emits >> several Lintian information tags.) > > The author of the upstream project wanted to put them to > /usr/share/swtpm. The files are just for the initialization and don't > be used for TPM operations directly, so maybe he wanted to put > /usr/share/swtpm instead of /usr/bin. Should I move them to /usr/bin? That they have man pages suggests that they are meant for human use. That their man pages are in section 8 suggests that they should live in /usr/sbin. But this is unreliable, since even the *.conf man pages are in section 8, while those belong to section 5. This actually depends on whether the executables are generally used by the system administrator or nonprivileged users (or only internally, in which case the scripts would indeed belong into /usr/share/swtpm). I started to suspect that the current decision wasn't based on the expected usage pattern, but rather on the implementation method (interpreted script or compiled binary), which isn't very useful. But I know too little about the swtpm ecosystem to be sure about the best filesystem layout for the future. -- Regards, Feri
Bug#997016: RFS: swtpm/0.7.0-rc2-1 [ITA] -- Libtpms-based TPM emulator
On Fri, 29 Oct 2021 15:37:12 +0900 Seunghun Han wrote: Control: tags -1 - moreinfo Thank you for your help, Bastian. I just uploaded a new package [1] to mentors.debian.net. Please check it if there are any other issues. I have created https://salsa.debian.org/debian/swtpm and granted you maintainer access. Please use that repo from now on. The upstream branch is a mix of upstream's git commits and gbp imports. Please fix that if you know how to do it. The watch file still needs work. See the uversionmangle in Feri's comment. The build fails. See https://salsa.debian.org/debian/swtpm/-/jobs/2129890
Bug#997016: RFS: swtpm/0.7.0-rc2-1 [ITA] -- Libtpms-based TPM emulator
Control: tags -1 - moreinfo Thank you for your help, Bastian. I just uploaded a new package [1] to mentors.debian.net. Please check it if there are any other issues. Best regards, Seunghun [1]: https://mentors.debian.net/package/swtpm/ On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 6:59 AM Bastian Germann wrote: > > Control: tags -1 moreinfo > > Please remove the moreinfo tag when you have dealt with the version number > and possibly > removed the static library (is there a version that loads libtpms > dynamically?). Please > keep the soversion in the library name. So no rename.
Bug#997016: RFS: swtpm/0.7.0-rc2-1 [ITA] -- Libtpms-based TPM emulator
Control: tags -1 moreinfo Please remove the moreinfo tag when you have dealt with the version number and possibly removed the static library (is there a version that loads libtpms dynamically?). Please keep the soversion in the library name. So no rename.
Bug#997016: RFS: swtpm/0.7.0-rc2-1 [ITA] -- Libtpms-based TPM emulator
On Sun, 2021-10-24 at 14:24 +0200, wf...@niif.hu wrote: > libraries (like libswtpm_libtpms.a) This library sounds like an embedded code copy, if it is one, please follow the advice on this wiki page. libtpms is already in Debian. https://wiki.debian.org/EmbeddedCopies -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#997016: RFS: swtpm/0.7.0-rc2-1 [ITA] -- Libtpms-based TPM emulator
Hello Feri, Thank you for your advice. > The upstream version number should be 0.7.0~rc2 with a tilde instead of > a hyphen to ensure proper ordering (as Lintian warns about). To do such > transformations automatically, put something like this in the watch file: > > uversionmangle=s/(\d)[_\.\-\+]?((RC|rc|pre|dev|beta|alpha)\d*)$/$1~$2/ > I will update the watch file following your advice soon. > > swtpm - Libtpms-based TPM emulator > > swtpm-dev - Include files for the TPM emulator's CUSE interface > > swtpm-libs - Common libraries for TPM emulators > > Why do you deviate from the usual libswtpm-dev/libswtpm0 package names? > Including the SO version in the package name enables installing > incompatible versions side-by-side, which is useful. > > Also, shipping static libraries (like libswtpm_libtpms.a) is generally > recommended against in Debian. Does this package warrant it? The upstream version already has some debian-related files, and I changed them to adopt the package. The author of it wants to name it like libswtpm0, so I used the name. The static libraries are also involved in upstream debian files. Should I change the name like libswtpm instead of libswtpm0 and remove static libraries from the package? > > > swtpm-tools - Tools for the TPM emulator > > Why do you put swtpm-create-tpmca, swtpm-create-user-config-files and > swtpm-localca into /usr/share/swtpm instead of /usr/bin? (This emits > several Lintian information tags.) The author of the upstream project wanted to put them to /usr/share/swtpm. The files are just for the initialization and don't be used for TPM operations directly, so maybe he wanted to put /usr/share/swtpm instead of /usr/bin. Should I move them to /usr/bin? Best regards, Seunghun
Bug#997016: RFS: swtpm/0.7.0-rc2-1 [ITA] -- Libtpms-based TPM emulator
Seunghun Han writes: > * Package name: swtpm >Version : 0.7.0-rc2-1 Hi, The upstream version number should be 0.7.0~rc2 with a tilde instead of a hyphen to ensure proper ordering (as Lintian warns about). To do such transformations automatically, put something like this in the watch file: uversionmangle=s/(\d)[_\.\-\+]?((RC|rc|pre|dev|beta|alpha)\d*)$/$1~$2/ > swtpm - Libtpms-based TPM emulator > swtpm-dev - Include files for the TPM emulator's CUSE interface > swtpm-libs - Common libraries for TPM emulators Why do you deviate from the usual libswtpm-dev/libswtpm0 package names? Including the SO version in the package name enables installing incompatible versions side-by-side, which is useful. Also, shipping static libraries (like libswtpm_libtpms.a) is generally recommended against in Debian. Does this package warrant it? > swtpm-tools - Tools for the TPM emulator Why do you put swtpm-create-tpmca, swtpm-create-user-config-files and swtpm-localca into /usr/share/swtpm instead of /usr/bin? (This emits several Lintian information tags.) -- Thanks for you work! Regards, Feri
Bug#997016: RFS: swtpm/0.7.0-rc2-1 [ITA] -- Libtpms-based TPM emulator
Hello Bastian, Thank you for your advice. I rewrite the change log according to it. If you don't mind, would you support the package below? swtpm: https://mentors.debian.net/package/swtpm/ Best regards, Seunghun On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 5:56 AM Bastian Germann wrote: > > On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 20:33:38 +0900 Seunghun Han wrote: > > swtpm (0.7.0-rc2-1) unstable; urgency=medium > > . > >* New maintainer (Closes: #941199) > >* Changed Standard-Version to 4.5.1 in debian/control > >* Updated debhelper version to 13 in debian/control > >* Added Rules-Requires-Root to debian/control > >* Added Vcs-Browser and Vcs-Git to debian/control > >* Converted debian/copyright to dep5-copyright format > >* Added debian/watch file > >* Fixed typos in source code and man pages > > Why all these when you are closing an ITP? The entry which closes the ITP > should be > rephrased and the other entries dropped.
Bug#997016: RFS: swtpm/0.7.0-rc2-1 [ITA] -- Libtpms-based TPM emulator
On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 20:33:38 +0900 Seunghun Han wrote: swtpm (0.7.0-rc2-1) unstable; urgency=medium . * New maintainer (Closes: #941199) * Changed Standard-Version to 4.5.1 in debian/control * Updated debhelper version to 13 in debian/control * Added Rules-Requires-Root to debian/control * Added Vcs-Browser and Vcs-Git to debian/control * Converted debian/copyright to dep5-copyright format * Added debian/watch file * Fixed typos in source code and man pages Why all these when you are closing an ITP? The entry which closes the ITP should be rephrased and the other entries dropped.
Bug#997016: RFS: swtpm/0.7.0-rc2-1 [ITA] -- Libtpms-based TPM emulator
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "swtpm": * Package name: swtpm Version : 0.7.0-rc2-1 Upstream Author : Stefan Berger * URL : https://github.com/stefanberger/swtpm * License : BSD-3-clause * Vcs : https://salsa.debian.org/kkamagui-guest/swtpm Section : misc It builds those binary packages: swtpm - Libtpms-based TPM emulator swtpm-dev - Include files for the TPM emulator's CUSE interface swtpm-libs - Common libraries for TPM emulators swtpm-tools - Tools for the TPM emulator To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/swtpm/ Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/swtpm/swtpm_0.7.0-rc2-1.dsc Changes for the initial release: swtpm (0.7.0-rc2-1) unstable; urgency=medium . * New maintainer (Closes: #941199) * Changed Standard-Version to 4.5.1 in debian/control * Updated debhelper version to 13 in debian/control * Added Rules-Requires-Root to debian/control * Added Vcs-Browser and Vcs-Git to debian/control * Converted debian/copyright to dep5-copyright format * Added debian/watch file * Fixed typos in source code and man pages Regards, -- Seunghun Han
