https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1819459
Bug ID: 1819459 Summary: Review Request: xmlrpc - Java XML-RPC implementation Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mat.booth@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mbooth/reviews/xmlrpc.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mbooth/reviews/xmlrpc-3.1.3-23.fc33.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: mbooth Description: Apache XML-RPC is a Java implementation of XML-RPC, a popular protocol that uses XML over HTTP to implement remote procedure calls.
This is an unretirement review, as required by https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Orphaned_package_that_need_new_maintainers#Cl...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1819459
Mat Booth mat.booth@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Link ID| |Fedora Pagure | |releng/issue/9370
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1819459
--- Comment #1 from Mat Booth mat.booth@redhat.com --- Added patch for bug 1791766 (CVE-2019-17570)
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mbooth/reviews/xmlrpc.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mbooth/reviews/xmlrpc-3.1.3-24.fc33.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1819459
Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST CC| |decathorpe@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |decathorpe@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Other than the few non-blocking issues noted below, the package looks pretty good. Please look at the issues below and fix them before importing the package, if applicable.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
====== ISSUES ======
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
Yup, 3.1.3 is 10 years old, but it's still the latest version :)
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in xmlrpc- common , xmlrpc-client , xmlrpc-server
Maybe the dependency from -client and -server onto -common should be exact? I don't think this should ever cause a problem (since upstream is dead), but better be safe than sorry, I guess ...
Requires: %{name}-common = %{version}-%{release}
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
Can you add some comments to the PatchXs in the .spec file before importing the package?
===== 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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]: 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 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
Java: [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
===== 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 xmlrpc- common , xmlrpc-client , xmlrpc-server [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: 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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %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). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: xmlrpc-javadoc-3.1.3-24.fc33.noarch.rpm xmlrpc-common-3.1.3-24.fc33.noarch.rpm xmlrpc-client-3.1.3-24.fc33.noarch.rpm xmlrpc-server-3.1.3-24.fc33.noarch.rpm xmlrpc-3.1.3-24.fc33.src.rpm xmlrpc-common.noarch: W: no-documentation xmlrpc-client.noarch: W: no-documentation xmlrpc-server.noarch: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- xmlrpc-server.noarch: W: no-documentation xmlrpc-client.noarch: W: no-documentation xmlrpc-common.noarch: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
Source checksums ---------------- https://archive.apache.org/dist/ws/xmlrpc/sources/apache-xmlrpc-3.1.3-src.ta... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 648a4ea5a5228408ea32e3efe184261b4c07ebc10fc0a4533e3969c0543dd70f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 648a4ea5a5228408ea32e3efe184261b4c07ebc10fc0a4533e3969c0543dd70f
Requires -------- xmlrpc-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javapackages-filesystem
xmlrpc-common (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-filesystem mvn(org.apache.ws.commons.util:ws-commons-util)
xmlrpc-client (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-filesystem mvn(org.apache.xmlrpc:xmlrpc-common) osgi(org.apache.xmlrpc.common)
xmlrpc-server (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-filesystem mvn(commons-logging:commons-logging) mvn(org.apache.xmlrpc:xmlrpc-common) osgi(org.apache.xmlrpc.common)
Provides -------- xmlrpc-javadoc: xmlrpc-javadoc
xmlrpc-common: mvn(org.apache.xmlrpc:xmlrpc-common) mvn(org.apache.xmlrpc:xmlrpc-common:pom:) mvn(org.apache.xmlrpc:xmlrpc:pom:) osgi(org.apache.xmlrpc.common) xmlrpc-common
xmlrpc-client: mvn(org.apache.xmlrpc:xmlrpc-client) mvn(org.apache.xmlrpc:xmlrpc-client:pom:) osgi(org.apache.xmlrpc) xmlrpc-client
xmlrpc-server: mvn(org.apache.xmlrpc:xmlrpc-server) mvn(org.apache.xmlrpc:xmlrpc-server:pom:) osgi(org.apache.xmlrpc.server) xmlrpc-server
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1819459 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Java, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: fonts, SugarActivity, C/C++, Python, Perl, Haskell, PHP, R, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1819459
--- Comment #3 from Mat Booth mat.booth@redhat.com --- (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #2)
Other than the few non-blocking issues noted below, the package looks pretty good. Please look at the issues below and fix them before importing the package, if applicable.
====== ISSUES ======
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
Yup, 3.1.3 is 10 years old, but it's still the latest version :)
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in xmlrpc- common , xmlrpc-client , xmlrpc-server
Maybe the dependency from -client and -server onto -common should be exact? I don't think this should ever cause a problem (since upstream is dead), but better be safe than sorry, I guess ...
Requires: %{name}-common = %{version}-%{release}
I don't know why the fedora-review tool doesn't show this, but the auto-generated requirements on the common package are actually sufficiently versioned:
$ rpm -qp --requires xmlrpc-client-3.1.3-24.fc33.noarch.rpm ... mvn(org.apache.xmlrpc:xmlrpc-common) = 3.1.3 osgi(org.apache.xmlrpc.common) = 3.1.3
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
Can you add some comments to the PatchXs in the .spec file before importing the package?
Yes, of course.
Many thanks again!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1819459
Mat Booth mat.booth@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2020-04-01 17:02:20
--- Comment #4 from Mat Booth mat.booth@redhat.com --- Built for F32/F33
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com