[Bug 1981115] New: Review Request: rust-signature - Traits for cryptographic signature algorithms (e.g
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981115
Bug ID: 1981115 Summary: Review Request: rust-signature - Traits for cryptographic signature algorithms (e.g Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: zebob.m@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-signature.spec SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-signature-1.3.1-1.fc35.src...
Description: Traits for cryptographic signature algorithms (e.g. ECDSA, Ed25519).
Fedora Account System Username: eclipseo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981115
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com --- New Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-signature.spec New SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-signature-1.3.1-1.fc35.src...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981115
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com --- New Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-signature.spec New SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-signature-1.3.1-1.fc35.src...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981115
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |rust-signature - Traits for |rust-signature - Traits for |cryptographic signature |cryptographic signature |algorithms (e.g |algorithms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981115
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |petersen@redhat.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981115
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- $ tar tf signature-1.3.1.crate signature-1.3.1/.cargo_vcs_info.json signature-1.3.1/CHANGELOG.md signature-1.3.1/Cargo.toml signature-1.3.1/Cargo.toml.orig signature-1.3.1/README.md signature-1.3.1/src/error.rs signature-1.3.1/src/lib.rs signature-1.3.1/src/signature.rs signature-1.3.1/src/signer.rs signature-1.3.1/src/verifier.rs signature-1.3.1/tests/signature_derive.rs
No LICENSE file ^
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
===== MUST items =====
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]: 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. [-]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/petersen/1981115-rust- signature/licensecheck.txt [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [x]: 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. [!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 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]: 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 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]: 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 rust- signature-devel , rust-signature+default-devel , rust- signature+derive-preview-devel , rust-signature+digest-devel , rust- signature+digest-preview-devel , rust-signature+rand-preview-devel , rust-signature+rand_core-devel , rust-signature+signature_derive-devel , rust-signature+std-devel [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=73124893 (on all archs) [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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 2.12 starting (python version = 3.9.6, NVR = mock-2.12-1.fc34)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins INFO: Signal handler active Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start: cleaning package manager metadata Finish: cleaning package manager metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 2.12 INFO: Mock Version: 2.12 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/petersen/1981115-rust-signature/results/rust-signature+default-devel-1.3.1-1.fc35.noarch.rpm /home/petersen/1981115-rust-signature/results/rust-signature+digest-preview-devel-1.3.1-1.fc35.noarch.rpm /home/petersen/1981115-rust-signature/results/rust-signature+rand-preview-devel-1.3.1-1.fc35.noarch.rpm /home/petersen/1981115-rust-signature/results/rust-signature+std-devel-1.3.1-1.fc35.noarch.rpm /home/petersen/1981115-rust-signature/results/rust-signature+digest-devel-1.3.1-1.fc35.noarch.rpm /home/petersen/1981115-rust-signature/results/rust-signature+signature_derive-devel-1.3.1-1.fc35.noarch.rpm /home/petersen/1981115-rust-signature/results/rust-signature+derive-preview-devel-1.3.1-1.fc35.noarch.rpm /home/petersen/1981115-rust-signature/results/rust-signature-devel-1.3.1-1.fc35.noarch.rpm /home/petersen/1981115-rust-signature/results/rust-signature+rand_core-devel-1.3.1-1.fc35.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 35 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk --disableplugin=versionlock install /home/petersen/1981115-rust-signature/results/rust-signature+default-devel-1.3.1-1.fc35.noarch.rpm /home/petersen/1981115-rust-signature/results/rust-signature+digest-preview-devel-1.3.1-1.fc35.noarch.rpm /home/petersen/1981115-rust-signature/results/rust-signature+rand-preview-devel-1.3.1-1.fc35.noarch.rpm /home/petersen/1981115-rust-signature/results/rust-signature+std-devel-1.3.1-1.fc35.noarch.rpm /home/petersen/1981115-rust-signature/results/rust-signature+digest-devel-1.3.1-1.fc35.noarch.rpm /home/petersen/1981115-rust-signature/results/rust-signature+signature_derive-devel-1.3.1-1.fc35.noarch.rpm /home/petersen/1981115-rust-signature/results/rust-signature+derive-preview-devel-1.3.1-1.fc35.noarch.rpm /home/petersen/1981115-rust-signature/results/rust-signature-devel-1.3.1-1.fc35.noarch.rpm /home/petersen/1981115-rust-signature/results/rust-signature+rand_core-devel-1.3.1-1.fc35.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts
Rpmlint ------- Checking: rust-signature-devel-1.3.1-1.fc35.noarch.rpm rust-signature+default-devel-1.3.1-1.fc35.noarch.rpm rust-signature+derive-preview-devel-1.3.1-1.fc35.noarch.rpm rust-signature+digest-devel-1.3.1-1.fc35.noarch.rpm rust-signature+digest-preview-devel-1.3.1-1.fc35.noarch.rpm rust-signature+rand-preview-devel-1.3.1-1.fc35.noarch.rpm rust-signature+rand_core-devel-1.3.1-1.fc35.noarch.rpm rust-signature+signature_derive-devel-1.3.1-1.fc35.noarch.rpm rust-signature+std-devel-1.3.1-1.fc35.noarch.rpm rust-signature-1.3.1-1.fc35.src.rpm rust-signature-devel.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://crates.io/crates/signature HTTP Error 404: Not Found rust-signature-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/cargo/registry/signature-1.3.1/.cargo-checksum.json rust-signature+default-devel.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://crates.io/crates/signature HTTP Error 404: Not Found rust-signature+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-signature+derive-preview-devel.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://crates.io/crates/signature HTTP Error 404: Not Found rust-signature+derive-preview-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-signature+digest-devel.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://crates.io/crates/signature HTTP Error 404: Not Found rust-signature+digest-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-signature+digest-preview-devel.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://crates.io/crates/signature HTTP Error 404: Not Found rust-signature+digest-preview-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-signature+rand-preview-devel.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://crates.io/crates/signature HTTP Error 404: Not Found rust-signature+rand-preview-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-signature+rand_core-devel.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://crates.io/crates/signature HTTP Error 404: Not Found rust-signature+rand_core-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-signature+signature_derive-devel.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://crates.io/crates/signature HTTP Error 404: Not Found rust-signature+signature_derive-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-signature+std-devel.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://crates.io/crates/signature HTTP Error 404: Not Found rust-signature+std-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-signature.src: W: invalid-url URL: https://crates.io/crates/signature HTTP Error 404: Not Found 10 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 19 warnings.
Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/signature/1.3.1/download#/signature-1.3.1.cr... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c19772be3c4dd2ceaacf03cb41d5885f2a02c4d8804884918e3a258480803335 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c19772be3c4dd2ceaacf03cb41d5885f2a02c4d8804884918e3a258480803335
Requires -------- rust-signature-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo
rust-signature+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(signature) crate(signature/std)
rust-signature+derive-preview-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(signature) crate(signature/digest-preview) crate(signature_derive/default)
rust-signature+digest-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(digest) >= 0.9.0 with crate(digest) < 0.10.0~) cargo crate(signature)
rust-signature+digest-preview-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(digest) >= 0.9.0 with crate(digest) < 0.10.0~) cargo crate(signature)
rust-signature+rand-preview-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(rand_core) >= 0.6.0 with crate(rand_core) < 0.7.0~) cargo crate(signature)
rust-signature+rand_core-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(rand_core) >= 0.6.0 with crate(rand_core) < 0.7.0~) cargo crate(signature)
rust-signature+signature_derive-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(signature) crate(signature_derive/default)
rust-signature+std-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(signature)
Provides -------- rust-signature-devel: crate(signature) rust-signature-devel
rust-signature+default-devel: crate(signature/default) rust-signature+default-devel
rust-signature+derive-preview-devel: crate(signature/derive-preview) rust-signature+derive-preview-devel
rust-signature+digest-devel: crate(signature/digest) rust-signature+digest-devel
rust-signature+digest-preview-devel: crate(signature/digest-preview) rust-signature+digest-preview-devel
rust-signature+rand-preview-devel: crate(signature/rand-preview) rust-signature+rand-preview-devel
rust-signature+rand_core-devel: crate(signature/rand_core) rust-signature+rand_core-devel
rust-signature+signature_derive-devel: crate(signature/signature_derive) rust-signature+signature_derive-devel
rust-signature+std-devel: crate(signature/std) rust-signature+std-devel
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1981115 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Perl, PHP, C/C++, fonts, Haskell, R, Python, SugarActivity, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
rust2rpm diff:
--- rust-signature.spec.rust2rpm 2021-08-02 14:43:08.000000000 +0800 +++ rust-signature.spec 2021-07-20 00:16:23.000000000 +0800 @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -# Generated by rust2rpm 18 +# Generated by rust2rpm 17 %bcond_without check %global debug_package %{nil}
@@ -13,8 +13,12 @@ License: ASL 2.0 or MIT URL: https://crates.io/crates/signature Source: %{crates_source} +# Initial patched metadata +# * Bump hex-literal to 0.3 (upstream) +Patch0: signature-fix-metadata.diff
-ExclusiveArch: %{rust_arches} +# rust-cpufeatures is only available on these arches +ExclusiveArch: x86_64 aarch64 %if %{__cargo_skip_build} BuildArch: noarch %endif
Not sure what is going on with url and install errors?
Package is APPROVED, but I think it can be built for all archs like rust-curve25519-dalek (bug 1981114)
Also please ask upstream to add LICENSE file(s)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981115
--- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- Ping :)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981115
--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com --- (In reply to Jens Petersen from comment #4)
Ping :)
Thx for the review.
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
I have sent a request upstream asking them to include a license field in the crate: https://github.com/RustCrypto/traits/issues/766
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981115
--- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-signature
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981115
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-bd998e6dca has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-bd998e6dca
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981115
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-9f1115706a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-9f1115706a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981115
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-bd998e6dca has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-bd998e6dca *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-bd998e6dca
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=1981115
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-9f1115706a has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-9f1115706a *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-9f1115706a
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=1981115
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2021-09-24 20:27:44
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-bd998e6dca has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981115
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-9f1115706a has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981115
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-8c70c1eba4 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-8c70c1eba4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981115
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-8c70c1eba4 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com