https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969723
Bug ID: 969723 Summary: Review Request: tlsdate - Secure parasitic rdate replacement Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: pwouters@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: ftp://ftp.nohats.ca/tlsdate/tlsdate.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.nohats.ca/tlsdate/tlsdate-0.0.7-0.1.fc18.src.rpm Description: tlsdate sets the local clock by securely connecting with TLS to remote servers and extracting the remote time out of the secure handshake. Unlike ntpdate, tlsdate uses TCP, for instance connecting to a remote HTTPS or TLS enabled service, and provides some protection against adversaries that try to feed you malicious time information.
Fedora Account System Username: pwouters
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969723
Patrick Uiterwijk puiterwijk@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |puiterwijk@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |puiterwijk@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Patrick Uiterwijk puiterwijk@gmail.com --- I will review this.
My first finding is that you have packaged 0.0.7, but this is not yet released. Do you have the actual URL where you downloaded the archive from?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969723
Patrick Uiterwijk puiterwijk@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pwouters@redhat.com Flags| |needinfo?(pwouters@redhat.c | |om)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969723
Paul Wouters pwouters@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(pwouters@redhat.c | |om) |
--- Comment #2 from Paul Wouters pwouters@redhat.com --- It's actually a git snapshot. I fixed it to use the packaging guidlines for github now.
Spec URL: ftp://ftp.nohats.ca/tlsdate/tlsdate.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.nohats.ca/tlsdate/tlsdate-0.0.7-0.2.fc18.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969723
--- Comment #3 from Patrick Uiterwijk patrick@puiterwijk.org ---
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues ====== - Please modify usage of macros to only use %-style or $-style. Currently both are used (RPM_OPT_FLAGS on line 42)
===== 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]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 40 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/puiterwijk/Documents/Development/Fedora/Reviewing/969723-tlsdate/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package consistently uses macro is (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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 6 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [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 %doc. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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 [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).
===== 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. [!]: 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]: Files in /run, var/run and /var/lock uses tmpfiles.d when appropriate [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: tlsdate-0.0.7-0.2.fc19.x86_64.rpm tlsdate.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) rdate -> rate, date, dater tlsdate.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ntpdate -> antedate, attendant tlsdate.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib tlsdate.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/run/tlsdated tlsdated tlsdate.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/run/tlsdated 0775L tlsdate.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/cache/tlsdated tlsdated tlsdate.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/cache/tlsdated tlsdated 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint tlsdate tlsdate.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) rdate -> rate, date, dater tlsdate.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ntpdate -> antedate, attendant tlsdate.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib tlsdate.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/run/tlsdated tlsdated tlsdate.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/run/tlsdated 0775L tlsdate.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/cache/tlsdated tlsdated tlsdate.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/cache/tlsdated tlsdated 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- tlsdate (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh ca-certificates config(tlsdate) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.10()(64bit) libcrypto.so.10(libcrypto.so.10)(64bit) libssl.so.10()(64bit) libssl.so.10(libssl.so.10)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) shadow-utils systemd-units
Provides -------- tlsdate: config(tlsdate) tlsdate tlsdate(x86-64)
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ioerror/tlsdate/archive/3f69a2245fddf5c63e2325c30d68c324e... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 875b02edf0b926091b07eed73e6871962ffd4004704949dd0be1740590f8fc22 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 875b02edf0b926091b07eed73e6871962ffd4004704949dd0be1740590f8fc22
Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-19-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 969723
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969723
Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | CC| |cickumqt@gmail.com
--- Comment #4 from Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com --- 1. systemd related lines are obsoleted.
Ref: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Systemd
BuildRequires: systemd-units
should be
BuildRequires: systemd
And
Requires(post): systemd-units Requires(preun): systemd-units Requires(postun): systemd-units
should be
Requires(post): systemd Requires(preun): systemd Requires(postun): systemd
2.%{__make} should be make
3. %configure --docdir=%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-%{version}
F20 uses unversioned docdir.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969723
Patrick Uiterwijk puiterwijk@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |puiterwijk@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Patrick Uiterwijk puiterwijk@redhat.com --- This looks sane to me.
APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969723
Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |misc@zarb.org
--- Comment #9 from Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org --- Also, it should be updated to 0.0.13 :)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969723
--- Comment #10 from Paul Wouters pwouters@redhat.com --- Just in time for TLS 1.3 to obsolete the required feature :)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969723
--- Comment #11 from Patrick Uiterwijk puiterwijk@redhat.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/tlsdate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969723
Paul Wouters pwouters@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969723
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- tlsdate-0.0.13-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-f9908796b8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969723
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- tlsdate-0.0.13-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-4038f3b861
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969723
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- tlsdate-0.0.13-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-a1f57beecb
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969723
Paul Wouters pwouters@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |RELEASE_PENDING
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969723
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |ON_QA
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- tlsdate-0.0.13-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 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-2015-4038f3b861
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969723
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- tlsdate-0.0.13-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 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-EPEL-2015-a1f57beecb
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969723
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- tlsdate-0.0.13-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 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-2015-f9908796b8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969723
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- tlsdate-0.0.13-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969723
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2016-01-03 15:22:52
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969723
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- tlsdate-0.0.13-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla