[Bug 1716729] New: Review Request: osslsigncode - Tool for Authenticode signing of EXE/CAB files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1716729
Bug ID: 1716729 Summary: Review Request: osslsigncode - Tool for Authenticode signing of EXE/CAB files Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: marmarek@mimuw.edu.pl QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://duch.mimuw.edu.pl/~marmarek/osslsigncode/osslsigncode.spec SRPM URL: http://duch.mimuw.edu.pl/~marmarek/osslsigncode/osslsigncode-2.0-1.fc31.src.... Description:
I'd like to unretire osslsigncode package, as there is maintained fork of the original (abandoned) package. It's at https://github.com/mtrojnar/osslsigncode The packaging is based on the retired package with minor changes (docs, ./autogen.sh call).
This is my first package in Fedora, so I'll need a sponsor.
Package description: osslsigncode is a small tool that implements part of the functionality of the Microsoft tool signtool.exe - more exactly the Authenticode signing and timestamping. But osslsigncode is based on OpenSSL and cURL, and thus should be able to compile on most platforms where these exist.
Fedora Account System Username: marmarek
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1716729
Marek Marczykowski marmarek@mimuw.edu.pl 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1716729
Gordon Messmer gordon.messmer@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |gordon.messmer@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Gordon Messmer gordon.messmer@gmail.com --- Hello, Marek. I am also not yet sponsored, but I would like to offer some feedback which might help you get this package through the review process more quickly when a sponsored packager looks at it. These are merely suggestions, but I believe that a reviewer will flag each of these issues:
1: "MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license."
The LICENSE.txt file appears to indicate that this project uses GPLv3+, with an exception to allow linking to OpenSSL. Your spec indicates GPLv2+, but I believe that "GPLv3+ with exceptions" would be appropriate. I might be wrong.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing
2: "MUST: 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 must be included in %license"
You should add "%license LICENSE.txt" to the spec.
3: I would recommend making a koji scratch build in order to demonstrate that the package builds in mock:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Insta...
4: "The BuildRoot: tag, Group: tag, and %clean section SHOULD NOT be used."
You should remove the BuildRoot tag and the %clean section:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_section...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1716729
--- Comment #2 from Gordon Messmer gordon.messmer@gmail.com --- I should add:
5: Group: is not used in Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1716729
--- Comment #3 from Gordon Messmer gordon.messmer@gmail.com --- 6: "The contents of the buildroot SHOULD NOT be removed in the first line of %install."
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1716729
--- Comment #4 from Marek Marczykowski marmarek@mimuw.edu.pl --- Thanks for the review. I've actually already made a scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=35260552
I've updated spec and src.rpm according to your comments and scheduled new scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=35368544
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1716729
--- Comment #5 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- We have %make_build and %make_install macros, you should us them instead of involving make directly (they should include the arguments you pass to them manually).
I also recommend putting the Name before the Summary (the current order is not very common).
%defattr(-,root,root,-) is no longer needed.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1716729
--- Comment #6 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- https://github.com/mtrojnar/osslsigncode/archive/%%7Bversion%7D.tar.gz#/ossl...
This should also work and seems simpler:
https://github.com/mtrojnar/osslsigncode/archive/%%7Bversion%7D/osslsigncode...
Even:
%{url}/archive/%{version}/osslsigncode-%{version}.tar.gz
Or:
%{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1716729
--- Comment #7 from Marek Marczykowski marmarek@mimuw.edu.pl --- Oh, I didn't know github supports archive urls as this too. Updated (including also %make macros). BTW %make_build doesn't add %{?_smp_mflags} - the -jX thing; but it doesn't matter for one .c file here.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1716729
--- Comment #8 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- $ rpm --eval '%make_build' /usr/bin/make -O -j7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1716729
--- Comment #9 from Marek Marczykowski marmarek@mimuw.edu.pl --- Oh, indeed, I was looking at the wrong line in build log.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1716729
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com
--- Comment #10 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - COPYING.txt should go in %license not %doc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1716729
--- Comment #11 from Marek Marczykowski marmarek@mimuw.edu.pl --- Updated.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1716729
--- Comment #12 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - Add gcc as a BR
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/osslsigncode See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [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", "GPL (v3 or later)", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/osslsigncode/review- osslsigncode/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 3 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %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: [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). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: osslsigncode-2.0-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm osslsigncode-debuginfo-2.0-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm osslsigncode-debugsource-2.0-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm osslsigncode-2.0-1.fc31.src.rpm osslsigncode.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary osslsigncode 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review
Package Review package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org has canceled Package Review package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org's request for Marek Marczykowski marmarek@mimuw.edu.pl's needinfo: Bug 1716729: Review Request: osslsigncode - Tool for Authenticode signing of EXE/CAB files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1716729
--- Comment #14 from Package Review package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org --- This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script.
The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com