https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1672272
Bug ID: 1672272 Summary: Review Request: tpm2-pkcs11 - PKCS#11 interface for TPM 2.0 hardware Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jjelen@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://jjelen.fedorapeople.org/tpm2-pkcs11.spec SRPM URL: https://jjelen.fedorapeople.org/tpm2-pkcs11-0-0.1.fc30.src.rpm Description: PKCS#11 interface for TPM 2.0 hardware Fedora Account System Username: jjelen
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jjelen/tpm2-pkcs11/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1672272
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - For a development snapshot the Release info should contain the snapshot date and the shortcommit:
Release: 0.1.%{snapshotdate}git%{shortcommit0}%{?dist}
- The description should be split to stay below 80 characters per line:
%description PKCS #11 is a Public-Key Cryptography Standard that defines a standard method to access cryptographic services from tokens/ devices such as hardware security modules (HSM), smart cards, etc. In this project we intend to use a TPM2 device as the cryptographic token.
- The LICENSE file must be installed with %license in %files
%license LICENSE
- These files should be in a -devel subpackage:
%{_libdir}/pkgconfig/tpm2-pkcs11.pc %{_libdir}/pkcs11/libtpm2_pkcs11.so
- There's a typo in the Source0 URL (%{commit} instead of %{commit0}, it should be:
Source0: https://github.com/tpm2-software/tpm2-pkcs11/archive/%%7Bcommit0%7D.tar.gz#/...
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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. [!]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention)", "*No copyright* BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "Unknown or generated". 87 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/tpm2-pkcs11/review- tpm2-pkcs11/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib64/pkcs11(opensc, p11 -kit-trust, coolkey) [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. [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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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 does not use a name that already exists. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [-]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in tpm2-pkcs11-debuginfo , tpm2-pkcs11-debugsource [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. Note: tpm2-pkcs11 : /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/tpm2-pkcs11.pc [-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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: tpm2-pkcs11-0-0.1.fc30.x86_64.rpm tpm2-pkcs11-debuginfo-0-0.1.fc30.x86_64.rpm tpm2-pkcs11-debugsource-0-0.1.fc30.x86_64.rpm tpm2-pkcs11-0-0.1.fc30.src.rpm tpm2-pkcs11.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C PKCS #11 is a Public-Key Cryptography Standard that defines a standard method to access cryptographic services from tokens/ devices such as hardware security modules (HSM), smart cards, etc. In this project we intend to use a TPM2 device as the cryptographic token. tpm2-pkcs11.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0-0.1gitc9814805 ['0-0.1.fc30', '0-0.1'] tpm2-pkcs11.x86_64: W: no-documentation tpm2-pkcs11.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/pkcs11/libtpm2_pkcs11.so tpm2-pkcs11.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/tpm2-pkcs11.pc tpm2-pkcs11.src: E: description-line-too-long C PKCS #11 is a Public-Key Cryptography Standard that defines a standard method to access cryptographic services from tokens/ devices such as hardware security modules (HSM), smart cards, etc. In this project we intend to use a TPM2 device as the cryptographic token. 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1672272
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelen jjelen@redhat.com --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1)
- For a development snapshot the Release info should contain the snapshot
date and the shortcommit:
Release: 0.1.%{snapshotdate}git%{shortcommit0}%{?dist}
Thank you. I do not know how I forgot this one. Fixed in the following update.
- The description should be split to stay below 80 characters per line:
%description PKCS #11 is a Public-Key Cryptography Standard that defines a standard method to access cryptographic services from tokens/ devices such as hardware security modules (HSM), smart cards, etc. In this project we intend to use a TPM2 device as the cryptographic token.
- The LICENSE file must be installed with %license in %files
%license LICENSE
Thanks. Fixed.
- These files should be in a -devel subpackage:
%{_libdir}/pkgconfig/tpm2-pkcs11.pc %{_libdir}/pkcs11/libtpm2_pkcs11.so
No, they are intentionally not in the devel subpackage, since the .so file is not a file to be used for development, but it is a PKCS#11 module which is intended to be used by end users. This part is not yet clarified in the packaging guidelines, but I already proposed a change to have it right (as it is this way already in many other packages: opensc, yubihs-shell, softhsm, p11-kit ...):
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/856
The .pc file should not be needed either.
- There's a typo in the Source0 URL (%{commit} instead of %{commit0}, it
should be:
Source0: https://github.com/tpm2-software/tpm2-pkcs11/archive/%%7Bcommit0%7D.tar.gz#/ %{name}-%{version}-git%{shortcommit0}.tar.gz
Thanks. Fixed.
I updated also the package to the latest commit.
Spec URL: https://jjelen.fedorapeople.org/tpm2-pkcs11.spec SRPM URL: https://jjelen.fedorapeople.org/tpm2-pkcs11-0-0.20190219git836d715.fc30.src....
Changelog and built status is available in copr:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jjelen/tpm2-pkcs11/build/860093/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1672272
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com ---
Release: 0.1.%{snapshotdate}git%{shortcommit0}%{?dist}
Thank you. I do not know how I forgot this one. Fixed in the following update.
It is not fixed in the file you uploaded:
Release: 0.20190219git%{shortcommit0}%{?dist}
→
Release: 0.1.20190219git%{shortcommit0}%{?dist}
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1672272
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelen jjelen@redhat.com --- Updated. Thanks for patience :)
Spec URL: https://jjelen.fedorapeople.org/tpm2-pkcs11.spec SRPM URL: https://jjelen.fedorapeople.org/tpm2-pkcs11-0-0.1.20190219git836d715.fc30.sr...
The build and diff:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jjelen/tpm2-pkcs11/build/860218/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1672272
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Package approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1672272
--- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/tpm2-pkcs11
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1672272
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- tpm2-pkcs11-0-0.1.20190219git836d715.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-a5e056e31c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1672272
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- tpm2-pkcs11-0-0.1.20190219git836d715.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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-2019-a5e056e31c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1672272
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2019-03-05 15:20:53
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- tpm2-pkcs11-0-0.1.20190219git836d715.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com