[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047

Hanns-Joachim Uhl  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1384452



-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047



--- Comment #51 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
(In reply to Tomas Mraz from comment #50)
> It's in /usr/share/licenses/tss2 - as you can find out by rpm -ql tss2

Oh, it is. :)  I couldn't see that licenses directory by eyeballing...should
have tried the tab.  Thanks!

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047



--- Comment #50 from Tomas Mraz  ---
It's in /usr/share/licenses/tss2 - as you can find out by rpm -ql tss2

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047



--- Comment #49 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
I could find the LICENSE file under /usr/share/doc/tss2-713/ in RHEL6, but the
"%license LICENSE" seemed to have ignored by Fedora. I couldn't find the
LICENSE file anywhere, nor could I find much info about it. Does anyone know
what's going on? please advise.

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-10-11 11:42:20



--- Comment #48 from Fedora Update System  ---
tss2-713-7.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems
still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047

Ken Goldman  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||kgold...@us.ibm.com



--- Comment #47 from Ken Goldman  ---
Re, OpenSSL 1.1:  For applications that use the high level API, changes may be
straightforward.  For applications like the TSS that require low level crypto
manipulation, it's a rewrite.  It's not just a rebuild with some minor changes.

Note that, for the TPM side, which needs even more primitive functions, the
port is even harder.

It's open source.  Anyone can try the port.  My feeling is that I'd like to
focus on developing applications at present.

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047



--- Comment #46 from Tomas Mraz  ---
I would not say this is really so huge task as the changes in most cases are
pretty straightforward. Also there will be no openssl-1.0.x in Fedora 26 that
could be used to build tss2 against and even if it was there it would not be
used by any main applications. There will be compat-openssl10 package but that
will be useful only for third party packages built on some other system such as
older Fedora.

Current status of 1.0 is that it will be discontinued upstream on 2019-12-31.
So it is right that it will be supported for some time but the advantages of
moving to 1.1 API that brings the long needed ABI stability are so big that
most distributions will move to it very soon.

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ON_QA



--- Comment #45 from Fedora Update System  ---
tss2-713-7.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-20df2ce477

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047



--- Comment #44 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
(In reply to Tomas Mraz from comment #37) 
> Also note that we are moving to OpenSSL-1.1.0 in rawhide very soon, so
> please work on making the tss2 compile against it.
> 

The developer of the package, Kenneth Goldman has expressed the following
concern:

"..this is a huge task.  1.1 is not at all backward compatible with 1.0, and
will likely break almost everything, not just the TSS."

"It's not just a recompile.  It's a major redesign.

The issue is that they decided to make many structures opaque, and so
applications like the TSS (and the TPM) that require manipulation of key
material change completely.

For example, a typical case, going from an RSA TPM key (n,d,e) to an openssl
key structure.

1.0 - direct access to RSA structure using BIGNUMs, no setter and getter API
1.1 - RSA structure is opaque, setters and getters implemented

1.0 is on long term support, and they will likely coexist for many years"

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047



--- Comment #43 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
The builds were successful, both on rawhide and f25:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=23163

I've submitted an update for the package (as this is later "Branched") via the
Bodhi web interface.

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047



--- Comment #42 from Tomas Mraz  ---
Yes, it is sponsored into Packagers now.

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047



--- Comment #41 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
Fedora Account System Username: honclo

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047



--- Comment #40 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
(In reply to Tomas Mraz from comment #37)
> Please remove the %defattr(0644,root,root,-) in the -devel subpackage, this
> is causing:
> 
> tss2-devel.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/share/doc/tss2-devel 644
> 
> This can be corrected before the import.
> 
> Please also fill the ExcludeArch bugs as required by
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/
> Guidelines#Architecture_Build_Failures
> 
Done.

Updated spec: https://honclo.fedorapeople.org/tss2.spec
Updated srpm: https://honclo.fedorapeople.org/tss2-713-7.fc24.src.rpm
Updated Koji output:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15960383
Updated COPR output:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/honclo/TSS2/build/461625/

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047

l...@us.ibm.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||238953
   ||(FE-ExcludeArch-ppc64)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=238953
[Bug 238953] ExcludeArch Tracker for ppc64
-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047

l...@us.ibm.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||485231
   ||(F-ExcludeArch-s390x)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485231
[Bug 485231] ExcludeArch Tracker for s390x
-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047



--- Comment #39 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
(In reply to Tomas Mraz from comment #38)
> I have also sponsored you into Fedora packager group.

Thank you very much for your reviews and willingness to sponsor me into the
Feodra packager group!  I'll be taking care of the follow-up work in the
previous comment.
Thanks,
Vicky

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047

Tomas Mraz  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |



--- Comment #38 from Tomas Mraz  ---
I have also sponsored you into Fedora packager group.


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor
-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047

Tomas Mraz  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #37 from Tomas Mraz  ---
Please remove the %defattr(0644,root,root,-) in the -devel subpackage, this is
causing:

tss2-devel.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/share/doc/tss2-devel 644

This can be corrected before the import.

Please also fill the ExcludeArch bugs as required by
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Architecture_Build_Failures

Also note that we are moving to OpenSSL-1.1.0 in rawhide very soon, so please
work on making the tss2 compile against it.

rpmlint output:
rpmlint -v tss2*
tss2-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking
tss2-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ibmtpm20tss/ (timeout 10 seconds)
tss2-devel.x86_64: I: checking
tss2-devel.x86_64: I: checking-url http://sourceforge.net/projects/ibmtpm20tss/
(timeout 10 seconds)
tss2-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
tss2-devel.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/share/doc/tss2-devel 644
tss2.src: I: checking
tss2.src: I: checking-url http://sourceforge.net/projects/ibmtpm20tss/ (timeout
10 seconds)
tss2.src: I: checking-url
https://sourceforge.net/projects/ibmtpm20tss/files/NotForUsers_FedoraSourceRpm/ibmtss713withman.tar
(timeout 10 seconds)
tss2.x86_64: I: checking
tss2.x86_64: I: checking-url http://sourceforge.net/projects/ibmtpm20tss/
(timeout 10 seconds)
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.

Package is ACCEPTED

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047



--- Comment #36 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
Hi Tomas,

If there is anything else that I can do in order for the package to get
approved, please feel free to let me know.


Thanks,
Vicky

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047



--- Comment #35 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
COPR output: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/honclo/TSS2/build/458951

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047



--- Comment #34 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
(In reply to Tomas Mraz from comment #30)
> I would say that in using Exclude vs. ExclusiveArch we should apply some
> reasoning - if it is positively known that the package does not work on
> anything else than x86_64 ppc64le armv7hl i686 then ExclusiveArch would be
> appropriate. If on the other hand we know that it does not work for example
> on aarch64 but it should work on anything else, then ExcludeArch would be
> more appropriate.

Thanks! The package doesn't support big endian yet. Thus, I liisted ppc64 and
s390x as ExcludeArch.

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047



--- Comment #33 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
(In reply to yunying.sun from comment #29)
> From Fedora packaging guideline, ExcludeArch is preferred than
> ExclusiveArch, see "ExcludeArch & ExclusiveArch" part @
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures#Primary_Architectures .
> 
> There are some explanations about ExcludeArch here:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:
> Guidelines?rd=PackagingGuidelines#Architecture_Support
> 
> You might need to change to ExcludeArch. Actually, I was advised so when
> packing a similar TSS2 package:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369708 . 
> 
> BTW, could we have a review swap?

Thanks for your review!  I'll take a look at yours.

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047



--- Comment #32 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
Updated Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~honclo/tss2.spec
Updated SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~honclo/tss2-713-6.fc24.src.rpm
Koji Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15812569

Here is the Rpmlint outputs:
$ rpmlint tss2.spec ../SRPMS ../RPMS
tss2-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

%changelog
* Mon Sep 26 2016 Hon Ching(Vicky) Lo  - 713-6
- Added s390x arch as another "ExcludeArch"

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047



--- Comment #31 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~honclo/tss2.spec
SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~honclo/tss2-713-5.fc24.src.rpm


Description:

TSS2 is a user space Trusted Computing Group's Software Stack (TSS) for
TPM 2.0.  It implements the functionality equivalent to the TCG TSS
working group's ESAPI, SAPI, and TCTI layers (and perhaps more) but with
a hopefully far simpler interface.

It comes with about 80 "TPM tools" that can be used for rapid prototyping,
education and debugging. 

Fedora Account System Username: l...@us.ibm.com
Koji Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15812194

This is my first package and I need a sponsor.  Thanks for all the comments
and review!


Here is the Rpmlint outputs:

$ rpmlint tss2.spec ../RPMS/ ../SRPMS/
tss2-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.


%changelog
* Mon Sep 26 2016 Hon Ching(Vicky) Lo  - 713-5
- replaced ExclusiveArch with ExcludeArch

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047



--- Comment #30 from Tomas Mraz  ---
I would say that in using Exclude vs. ExclusiveArch we should apply some
reasoning - if it is positively known that the package does not work on
anything else than x86_64 ppc64le armv7hl i686 then ExclusiveArch would be
appropriate. If on the other hand we know that it does not work for example on
aarch64 but it should work on anything else, then ExcludeArch would be more
appropriate.

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047

yunying@intel.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||yunying@intel.com



--- Comment #29 from yunying@intel.com ---
From Fedora packaging guideline, ExcludeArch is preferred than ExclusiveArch,
see "ExcludeArch & ExclusiveArch" part @
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures#Primary_Architectures .

There are some explanations about ExcludeArch here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=PackagingGuidelines#Architecture_Support

You might need to change to ExcludeArch. Actually, I was advised so when
packing a similar TSS2 package:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369708 . 

BTW, could we have a review swap?

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047



--- Comment #28 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
(In reply to Tomas Mraz from comment #26)
> (In reply to lo1 from comment #24)
> > The developer has been using nonstandard variables such as LNFLAGS (as
> > opposed to LDFLAGS) and CCFLAGS (for CFLAGS) etc.  There were other compile
> > flags such as CCLFLAGS for compiling library and CCAFLAGS for compiling
> > application.
> > 
> > Would that be OK to keep the naming of those nonstandard variables, while
> > I'm making sure that the build includes hardending and optimalization with
> > the RPM_OPT_FLAGS?
> 
Done.

I see that 2016-09-27 is the date for 100% Code Complete Deadline.  We don't
expect there is any more code change, once the package is accepted.  If it gets
accepted, are there any other steps that has to happen other than checking in
the code before 9/27 on my part?  I did see that the bug status has to be
ON_QA, but I wonder how long it'll take from package acceptance till the bug is
moved to ON_QA.  Please advise.


Thanks,
Vicky

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047



--- Comment #27 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~honclo/tss2.spec
SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~honclo/tss2-713-4.el6.src.rpm

Description:

TSS2 is a user space Trusted Computing Group's Software Stack (TSS) for
TPM 2.0.  It implements the functionality equivalent to the TCG TSS
working group's ESAPI, SAPI, and TCTI layers (and perhaps more) but with
a hopefully far simpler interface.

It comes with about 80 "TPM tools" that can be used for rapid prototyping,
education and debugging. 

Fedora Account System Username: l...@us.ibm.com
Koji Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15770811

This is my first package and I need a sponsor.  Thanks for all the comments
and review!


Here is the Rpmlint outputs:

# uname -a
Linux fed24vm 4.5.5-300.fc24.x86_64 #1 SMP Thu May 19 13:05:32 UTC 2016 x86_64
x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

# rpmlint --version
rpmlint version 1.9 Copyright (C) 1999-2007 Frederic Lepied, Mandriva

# rpmlint tss2.spec ../RPMS/ ../SRPMS/
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
tss2-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.



%changelog
* Mon Sep 19 2016 Hon Ching(Vicky) Lo  - 713-4
- Used ExclusiveArch instead of BuildArch tag
- Removed attr from symlink in devel subpackage 
- Added manpages and modified the Source0
- Added CCFLAGS and LNFLAGS to enforce hardening and optimization


Vicky

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047



--- Comment #26 from Tomas Mraz  ---
(In reply to lo1 from comment #24)
> The developer has been using nonstandard variables such as LNFLAGS (as
> opposed to LDFLAGS) and CCFLAGS (for CFLAGS) etc.  There were other compile
> flags such as CCLFLAGS for compiling library and CCAFLAGS for compiling
> application.
> 
> Would that be OK to keep the naming of those nonstandard variables, while
> I'm making sure that the build includes hardending and optimalization with
> the RPM_OPT_FLAGS?

Yes, that should not be problem. However please also ensure that LDFLAGS set by
rpm build environment are applied when linking the binaries and library.

> I've fixed all warnings except for the "tss2-devel.x86_64: W: 
> only-non-binary-in-usr-lib".  Can this warning be ignored?

Yes, this can be ignored.

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047



--- Comment #25 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
(In reply to Jerry Snitselaar from comment #22)
> > cat /etc/fedora-release 
> Fedora release 24 (Twenty Four)
> > rpmlint --version
> rpmlint version 1.9 Copyright (C) 1999-2007 Frederic Lepied, Mandriva
> > rpm -qf `which rpmlint`
> rpmlint-1.9-3.fc24.noarch
> 
> > rpmlint tss2.spec ../SRPMS ../RPMS
> tss2.spec:14: E: buildarch-instead-of-exclusivearch-tag x86_64 ppc64le
> armv7hl i686
> tss2.src:14: E: buildarch-instead-of-exclusivearch-tag x86_64 ppc64le
> armv7hl i686
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspolicysigned
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssnvwritelock
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssnvread
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspolicyrestart
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssevictcontrol
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssshutdown
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssnvcertify
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssquote
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssunseal
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspolicypcr
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspolicyor
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsssequenceupdate
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssrsadecrypt
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsssetprimarypolicy
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssnvundefinespace
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspolicycommandcode
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssnvwrite
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssnvchangeauth
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssverifysignature
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssgetrandom
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssnvextend
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssrsaencrypt
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssactivatecredential
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspolicygetdigest
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsscontextload
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssgetsessionauditdigest
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsscreateprimary
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssclockrateadjust
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssduplicate
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsssignapp
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsshash
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssreadpublic
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsssign
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsscreate
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsshmac
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsswriteapp
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspolicynvwritten
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssloadexternal
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspolicyauthvalue
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsscreateek
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsshmacstart
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssclearcontrol
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspolicyauthorize
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsseventextend
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsssequencecomplete
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsschangeeps
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspcrallocate
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssnvdefinespace
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspolicysecret
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssrewrap
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsseventsequencecomplete
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspcrevent
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspowerup
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssimport
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssnvsetbits
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssclockset
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspolicycphash
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssload
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspolicymaker
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsscontextsave
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssnvreadlock
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsshierarchychangeauth
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssgetcommandauditdigest
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssnvreadpublic
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsshashsequencestart
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsseccparameters
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssstartauthsession
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspolicymakerpcr
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssmakecredential
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssobjectchangeauth
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsshierarchycontrol
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspcrextend
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspolicypassword
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary 

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047



--- Comment #24 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
(In reply to Tomas Mraz from comment #23)
> I'll review this package.
> 
> My comments:
> 
> Use ExclusiveArch instead of BuildArch and in general follow
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:
> Guidelines?rd=PackagingGuidelines#Architecture_Support
> If the reason for building on just the architectures specified is that the
> other platforms do not have the hardware needed, then please at least add a
> comment about this fact to the spec.
> 
> The build is nonstandard and does not apply RPM_OPT_FLAGS and LDFLAGS during
> the build which means that hardening and optimalization is not applied. This
> must be fixed too.

Thanks for taking time to review this package!

The developer has been using nonstandard variables such as LNFLAGS (as opposed
to LDFLAGS) and CCFLAGS (for CFLAGS) etc.  There were other compile flags such
as CCLFLAGS for compiling library and CCAFLAGS for compiling application.

Would that be OK to keep the naming of those nonstandard variables, while I'm
making sure that the build includes hardending and optimalization with the
RPM_OPT_FLAGS?



Vicky

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047

Tomas Mraz  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||tm...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tm...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #23 from Tomas Mraz  ---
I'll review this package.

My comments:

Use ExclusiveArch instead of BuildArch and in general follow
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=PackagingGuidelines#Architecture_Support
If the reason for building on just the architectures specified is that the
other platforms do not have the hardware needed, then please at least add a
comment about this fact to the spec.

The build is nonstandard and does not apply RPM_OPT_FLAGS and LDFLAGS during
the build which means that hardening and optimalization is not applied. This
must be fixed too.

%attr(0755,root,root) %{_libdir}/*.so
- %attr is not applicable to symlink

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047

Jerry Snitselaar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jsnit...@redhat.com



--- Comment #22 from Jerry Snitselaar  ---
> cat /etc/fedora-release 
Fedora release 24 (Twenty Four)
> rpmlint --version
rpmlint version 1.9 Copyright (C) 1999-2007 Frederic Lepied, Mandriva
> rpm -qf `which rpmlint`
rpmlint-1.9-3.fc24.noarch

> rpmlint tss2.spec ../SRPMS ../RPMS
tss2.spec:14: E: buildarch-instead-of-exclusivearch-tag x86_64 ppc64le armv7hl
i686
tss2.src:14: E: buildarch-instead-of-exclusivearch-tag x86_64 ppc64le armv7hl
i686
tss2.x86_64: W: no-documentation
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspolicysigned
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssnvwritelock
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssnvread
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspolicyrestart
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssevictcontrol
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssshutdown
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssnvcertify
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssquote
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssunseal
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspolicypcr
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspolicyor
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsssequenceupdate
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssrsadecrypt
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsssetprimarypolicy
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssnvundefinespace
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspolicycommandcode
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssnvwrite
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssnvchangeauth
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssverifysignature
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssgetrandom
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssnvextend
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssrsaencrypt
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssactivatecredential
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspolicygetdigest
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsscontextload
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssgetsessionauditdigest
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsscreateprimary
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssclockrateadjust
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssduplicate
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsssignapp
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsshash
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssreadpublic
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsssign
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsscreate
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsshmac
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsswriteapp
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspolicynvwritten
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssloadexternal
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspolicyauthvalue
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsscreateek
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsshmacstart
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssclearcontrol
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspolicyauthorize
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsseventextend
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsssequencecomplete
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsschangeeps
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspcrallocate
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssnvdefinespace
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspolicysecret
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssrewrap
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsseventsequencecomplete
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspcrevent
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspowerup
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssimport
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssnvsetbits
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssclockset
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspolicycphash
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssload
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspolicymaker
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsscontextsave
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssnvreadlock
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsshierarchychangeauth
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssgetcommandauditdigest
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssnvreadpublic
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsshashsequencestart
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsseccparameters
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssstartauthsession
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspolicymakerpcr
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssmakecredential
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssobjectchangeauth
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsshierarchycontrol
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspcrextend
tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspolicypassword

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047



--- Comment #21 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~honclo/tss2.spec
SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~honclo/tss2-713-3.el6.src.rpm

Description: 
TSS2 is a user space Trusted Computing Group's Software Stack (TSS) for
TPM 2.0.  It implements the functionality equivalent to the TCG TSS
working group's ESAPI, SAPI, and TCTI layers (and perhaps more) but with
a hopefully far simpler interface.

It comes with about 80 "TPM tools" that can be used for rapid prototyping,
education and debugging. 

Fedora Account System Username: l...@us.ibm.com

Koji Build:  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15291911

This is my first package and I need a sponsor.  I appreciate all the
comments and reviews!


Rpmlint output:

$ rpmlint tss2.spec ../SRPMS/tss2* ../RPMS/*/tss2*
tss2.spec:73: E: files-attr-not-set
tss2.spec:74: E: files-attr-not-set
tss2.spec:75: E: files-attr-not-set
tss2.spec:76: E: files-attr-not-set
tss2.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
tss2.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
tss2.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag
tss2.spec: W: no-%clean-section
tss2.src:73: E: files-attr-not-set
tss2.src:74: E: files-attr-not-set
tss2.src:75: E: files-attr-not-set
tss2.src:76: E: files-attr-not-set
tss2.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
tss2.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
tss2.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
tss2.src: W: no-%clean-section
tss2.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ibmtpm20tss/files/ibmtss713.tar 
tss2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) tss -> ts, toss, ass
tss2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tss -> ts, toss,
ass
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 11 warnings.



%changelog
* Wed Aug 17 2016 Hon Ching(Vicky) Lo  - 713-3
- modified supported arch to ppc64le

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047



--- Comment #19 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #2)

> > BuildRoot:  %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
> not needed
> 
> > rm -fr %{buildroot}
> not needed
> 
> > %clean
> > [ "%{buildroot}" != "/" ] && rm -rf %{buildroot}
> don't do that
> 
> > %defattr(-,root,root)
> not needed
> 

I did these cleanings. The 'rpmlint' tool wasn't too happy with all these
changes I made.  But, I assume that the tool doesn't apply to or hasn't caught
up with the EPEL packaging.

Thanks,
Vicky

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047



--- Comment #19 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #2)

> > BuildRoot:  %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
> not needed
> 
> > rm -fr %{buildroot}
> not needed
> 
> > %clean
> > [ "%{buildroot}" != "/" ] && rm -rf %{buildroot}
> don't do that
> 
> > %defattr(-,root,root)
> not needed
> 

I did these cleanings. The 'rpmlint' tool wasn't too happy with all these
changes I made.  But, I assume that the tool doesn't apply to or hasn't caught
up with the EPEL packaging.

Thanks,
Vicky

--- Comment #20 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #2)

> > BuildRoot:  %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
> not needed
> 
> > rm -fr %{buildroot}
> not needed
> 
> > %clean
> > [ "%{buildroot}" != "/" ] && rm -rf %{buildroot}
> don't do that
> 
> > %defattr(-,root,root)
> not needed
> 

I did these cleanings. The 'rpmlint' tool wasn't too happy with all these
changes I made.  But, I assume that the tool doesn't apply to or hasn't caught
up with the EPEL packaging.

Thanks,
Vicky

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047



--- Comment #18 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
Rpmlint output:

rpmlint tss2.spec  ../SRPMS/tss2* ../RPMS/*/tss2*
tss2.spec:73: E: files-attr-not-set
tss2.spec:74: E: files-attr-not-set
tss2.spec:75: E: files-attr-not-set
tss2.spec:76: E: files-attr-not-set
tss2.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
tss2.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
tss2.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag
tss2.spec: W: no-%clean-section
tss2.src:73: E: files-attr-not-set
tss2.src:74: E: files-attr-not-set
tss2.src:75: E: files-attr-not-set
tss2.src:76: E: files-attr-not-set
tss2.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
tss2.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
tss2.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
tss2.src: W: no-%clean-section
tss2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) tss -> ts, toss, ass
tss2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tss -> ts, toss,
ass
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 10 warnings.
[lo1@vtpm2014 SPECS]$

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047



--- Comment #17 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~honclo/tss2.spec
SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~honclo/tss2-713-2.el6.src.rpm

Description: 
TSS2 is a user space Trusted Computing Group's Software Stack (TSS) for
TPM 2.0.  It implements the functionality equivalent to the TCG TSS
working group's ESAPI, SAPI, and TCTI layers (and perhaps more) but with
a hopefully far simpler interface.

It comes with about 80 "TPM tools" that can be used for rapid prototyping,
education and debugging. 

Fedora Account System Username: l...@us.ibm.com

Koji Build:  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15250859

This is my first package and I need a sponsor.  I appreciate all the
comments!

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047



--- Comment #16 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
(In reply to Jason Tibbitts from comment #15)
> I'll do it; I should be done in a few minutes, but it might take another
> half an hour before you're able to access the servers.

Yay got it. Thank you!

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047



--- Comment #15 from Jason Tibbitts  ---
I'll do it; I should be done in a few minutes, but it might take another half
an hour before you're able to access the servers.

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047



--- Comment #14 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #12)
> Can you post the updated spec file and srpm?
> 
> (See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353000#c8 for an example
> that is in the most commonly used format which makes it easy for reviews to
> understand what has changed.)
Hi Zbigniew,

Will you be able to add me to a non CLA group?  I haven't got responses from
the groups  that I wanted to join and seems like it's going to take a while..


Vicky

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047



--- Comment #13 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #12)
> Can you post the updated spec file and srpm?
> 
> (See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353000#c8 for an example
> that is in the most commonly used format which makes it easy for reviews to
> understand what has changed.)

I've been having problems ssh into my fedorapeople.org account.  I've tried
both RHEL and Fedora system's rsa keys and still not working.  I'll get some
help on that or see of there is an alternative public site that I can upload on
Monday.  


Vicky

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047



--- Comment #12 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
Can you post the updated spec file and srpm?

(See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353000#c8 for an example that
is in the most commonly used format which makes it easy for reviews to
understand what has changed.)

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047



--- Comment #11 from Jason Tibbitts  ---
If you do a mock build, the buildroot will always have epel-rpm-macros.  It is
one of the packages that is guaranteed to be there, like rpm or
redhat-rpm-config.  This is all to simplify EPEL packaging just a bit.  See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging for more detailed info.

Anyway, none of this really has much to do with the review.  That one line
doesn't hurt anything besides looking like a mess of line noise.  It's just not
necessary for the package to build in the Fedora buildsystem.

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047



--- Comment #10 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
(In reply to Jason Tibbitts from comment #9)
> epel-rpm-macros defines that for you, provided you don't have the SCL macros
> installed.  You can't do an epel mockbuild without having epel-rpm-macros
> installed, so there isn't much reason for a package to include that line. 
> (It's not necessary in EPEL5, either.)

Thanks!  After I removed scl-utils and installed epel-rpm-macros, I could build
without having '%{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc}'.  But, I wonder why
epel-6-x86_64 mockbuild worked with me before when I didn't have
epel-rpm-macros installed.

Vicky

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047



--- Comment #9 from Jason Tibbitts  ---
epel-rpm-macros defines that for you, provided you don't have the SCL macros
installed.  You can't do an epel mockbuild without having epel-rpm-macros
installed, so there isn't much reason for a package to include that line. 
(It's not necessary in EPEL5, either.)

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047



--- Comment #8 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #2)
> 
> > %{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc}
> not needed

Hi Igor, 

I actually need that line for it to build; maybe because I'm running on
RHEL6.6.   


Vicky

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047



--- Comment #7 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #6)
> > Given that there are 95 executables under the %{_bindir} in this case, do 
> > we still want to explicitlly list all files?
> 
> In this case %{_bindir}/tss* would be a reasonable compromise.
> And there's only two files in %{_libdir}/, so they should be listed
> explicitly:
> 
> %files
> %{_bindir}/tss*
> %{_libdir}/libtss.so.0
> %{_libdir}/libtss.so.0.*
> 
> As an additional advantage, this protects against accidental so version
> bumps (which are forbidden in stable releases).

That makes perfect sense.  Thank you!

Vicky

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047



--- Comment #6 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
> Given that there are 95 executables under the %{_bindir} in this case, do we 
> still want to explicitlly list all files?

In this case %{_bindir}/tss* would be a reasonable compromise.
And there's only two files in %{_libdir}/, so they should be listed explicitly:

%files
%{_bindir}/tss*
%{_libdir}/libtss.so.0
%{_libdir}/libtss.so.0.*

As an additional advantage, this protects against accidental so version bumps
(which are forbidden in stable releases).

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047



--- Comment #5 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #2)
> > # Copyright (C) IBM Corp. 2015,2016
> please, no ;)
> 
> > BuildRoot:  %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
> not needed
> 
> > BuildArch:  x86_64 ppc64
> it doesn't build for others?
> 
> > make -f makefile.fedora
> missing %{?_smp_mflags}
> 
> > rm -fr %{buildroot}
> not needed
> 
> > %clean
> > [ "%{buildroot}" != "/" ] && rm -rf %{buildroot}
> don't do that
> 
> > %defattr(-,root,root)
> not needed
> 
> > %{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc}
> not needed

Hi Igor,
Thanks for your comments!  I'll make modifications accordingly.  I'll run Koji
build for other architectures to see.


Vicky

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047



--- Comment #4 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #3)
> The spec file and srpm should be available directly, so that automatic tools
> like fedora-review can download it without issues. Please, just avoid
> sf.net. If you don't have any public web space available, you can ask for
> fp.o account
> (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/fedorapeople.org).
> 
> Summary should not repeat the package name, it should say what the package
> is in a few words. The %description should describe the functionality in
> two-three paragraphs. Also not everybody knows what TSS/TCG/TPM is, so the
> abbrevs should be expanded. See 'rpm -qi python' for a reasonable template.
> 
> It's good practice to explicitly list files in %{_bindir} and %{_libdir},
> instead of using a wide pattern like %{_bindir}/*.

Hi Zbignlew,
Thanks for your comments!  Given that there are 95 executables under the
%{_bindir} in this case, do we still want to explicitlly list all files?


Vicky

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl



--- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
The spec file and srpm should be available directly, so that automatic tools
like fedora-review can download it without issues. Please, just avoid sf.net.
If you don't have any public web space available, you can ask for fp.o account
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/fedorapeople.org).

Summary should not repeat the package name, it should say what the package is
in a few words. The %description should describe the functionality in two-three
paragraphs. Also not everybody knows what TSS/TCG/TPM is, so the abbrevs should
be expanded. See 'rpm -qi python' for a reasonable template.

It's good practice to explicitly list files in %{_bindir} and %{_libdir},
instead of using a wide pattern like %{_bindir}/*.

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047



--- Comment #2 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
> # Copyright (C) IBM Corp. 2015,2016
please, no ;)

> BuildRoot:%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
not needed

> BuildArch:x86_64 ppc64
it doesn't build for others?

> make -f makefile.fedora
missing %{?_smp_mflags}

> rm -fr %{buildroot}
not needed

> %clean
> [ "%{buildroot}" != "/" ] && rm -rf %{buildroot}
don't do that

> %defattr(-,root,root)
not needed

> %{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc}
not needed

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047

l...@us.ibm.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||l...@us.ibm.com



--- Comment #1 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
Here is the rpmlint output:


$ rpmlint tss2.spec ../SRPMS/*.rpm ../RPMS/*/*.rpm
tss2.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ibmtpm20tss/files/ibmtss713.tar HTTP Error 404:
Not Found
tss2.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ibmtpm20tss/files/ibmtss713.tar HTTP Error 404:
Not Found
tss2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) tss -> ts, toss, ass
tss2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tss -> ts, toss,
ass
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047

l...@us.ibm.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor
-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org