https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072599
Bug ID: 2072599 Summary: Review Request: pdfsign - Sign PDF (PAdES compatible) Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: me@fale.io QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/pdfsign/pdfsign.spec SRPM URL: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/pdfsign/pdfsign-0-1.20220206gitd266daf.fc35.sr... Koji URL: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=85252761 Description: Sign PDF (PAdES compatible) Fedora Account System Username: fale
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072599
Mikel Olasagasti Uranga mikel@olasagasti.info changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mikel@olasagasti.info Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mikel@olasagasti.info
--- Comment #1 from Mikel Olasagasti Uranga mikel@olasagasti.info ---
%global codate 20220206 Release: %autorelease -s %{codate}git%{shortcommit}
Although this is correct, you used another formula in the googleapi's spec. Check which format you want to use for more homogeneity in your specs.
%global debug_package %{nil}
Why disable the debug package?
buildRequires: libpng-devel buildRequires: libjpeg-turbo-devel
Capitalize to BuildRequires. Ordering BR alphabetically can be useful also.
g++ pdfsign.cpp -I/usr/include/podofo/ -lpodofo -ljpeg -lfreetype -lpng -lz -lcrypto -lpthread -lfontconfig %{optflags} %{build_ldflags} -o pdfsign
You can add %{optflags} %{build_ldflags} to that command to use Fedora's defined hardening flags.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072599
--- Comment #2 from Fabio Alessandro Locati me@fale.io --- Thanks a lot Mikel.
1. Thanks, fixed 2. Copy & paste mistake :-(, thanks for catching it! 3. Perfect, thanks! 4. Thanks for the suggestion!
Spec URL: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/pdfsign/pdfsign.spec SRPM URL: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/pdfsign/pdfsign-0-1.20220206gitd266daf.fc35.sr... Koji URL: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=85491642
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072599
Mikel Olasagasti Uranga mikel@olasagasti.info changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Mikel Olasagasti Uranga mikel@olasagasti.info --- Thanks for doing the suggested changes, package approved.
Before pushing it and for future reviews, please, remove unused code rather than commenting it. The commented line for `debug_package` gives some warnings for example.
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. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [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: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/2072599-pdfsign/licensecheck.txt [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]: 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 must own all directories that it creates. [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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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: [x]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [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]: 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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/opensignature/pdfsign/archive/d266daf800f77dd41781af23d25... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1c49dfdae05b8fb89a3a590b3a438c3b4b6b72ee9bbc060b61ae53222fb46914 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1c49dfdae05b8fb89a3a590b3a438c3b4b6b72ee9bbc060b61ae53222fb46914
Requires -------- pdfsign (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libfontconfig.so.1()(64bit) libfreetype.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libjpeg.so.62()(64bit) libpng16.so.16()(64bit) libpodofo.so.0.9.7()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- pdfsign: pdfsign pdfsign(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2072599 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, Ocaml, PHP, Haskell, SugarActivity, Perl, R, fonts, Python Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072599
--- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pdfsign
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072599
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-dfc12b5d73 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-dfc12b5d73
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072599
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2022-04-12 15:37:22
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-dfc12b5d73 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072599
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-b873eeb689 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-b873eeb689
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072599
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-b873eeb689 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-b873eeb689 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-b873eeb689
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072599
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-b873eeb689 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com