https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1745770
Bug ID: 1745770 Summary: Review Request: rpki-client - RPKI client implementation Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.de QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/rpki-client.spec SRPM URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/rpki-client-0.2.0-1.src.rpm Description: rpki-client is an implementation of RPKI (Resource Public Key Infrastructure), specified by RFC 6480. It implements the client side of RPKI, which is responsible for downloading, validating and converting ROAs (Route Origin Authorisations) into VRPs (Validated ROA Payloads). The client's output (VRPs) can be used to perform BGP Origin Validation (RFC 6811). The design focus of rpki-client is simplicity and security. To wit, it implements RPKI components necessary for validating route statements and omits superfluities (such as, for example, which X509 certificate sections must be labelled "Critical"). Fedora Account System Username: robert
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1745770
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST 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 --- - Please add a comment explaining why the patch is needed
Package approved. Please fix the aforementioned issue before import.
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]: 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "ISC License", "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/rpki-client/review-rpki- client/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 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]: 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 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 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 rpki- client [?]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: rpki-client-0.2.0-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm rpki-client-debuginfo-0.2.0-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm rpki-client-debugsource-0.2.0-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm rpki-client-0.2.0-1.fc32.src.rpm rpki-client.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US superfluities -> superfluity, supercities rpki-client.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US labelled -> labeled, la belled, la-belled rpki-client.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/cache/rpki-client rpki-client rpki-client.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/cache/rpki-client rpki-client rpki-client.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/rpki-client 750 rpki-client.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/rpki-client rpki-client rpki-client.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/rpki-client rpki-client rpki-client.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/rpki-client 750 rpki-client.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US superfluities -> superfluity, supercities rpki-client.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US labelled -> labeled, la belled, la-belled rpki-client.src:36: W: configure-without-libdir-spec rpki-client.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://github.com/kristapsdz/rpki-client/archive/VERSION_%%7Bvcs_ver%7D/rpk... HTTP Error 400: Bad Request 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 10 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1745770
--- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rpki-client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1745770
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2019-90a496eed5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-90a496eed5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1745770
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2019-0ba23668a7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-0ba23668a7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1745770
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2019-9a53205654 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-9a53205654
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1745770
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2019-21fc78d2da has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-21fc78d2da
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1745770
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2019-9501db7b7a has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-9501db7b7a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1745770
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2019-8a8bf6c622 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-8a8bf6c622
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1745770
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- rpki-client-0.2.0-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-2019-90a496eed5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1745770
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- rpki-client-0.2.0-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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-2019-0ba23668a7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1745770
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- rpki-client-0.2.0-1.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-2019-9a53205654
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1745770
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- rpki-client-0.2.0-1.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-2019-9501db7b7a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1745770
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- rpki-client-0.2.0-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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-2019-8a8bf6c622
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1745770
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- rpki-client-0.2.0-1.el8 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 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-2019-21fc78d2da
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1745770
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2019-09-08 02:58:28
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- rpki-client-0.2.0-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1745770
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- rpki-client-0.2.0-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1745770
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- rpki-client-0.2.0-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1745770
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- rpki-client-0.2.0-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1745770
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- rpki-client-0.2.0-1.el8 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1745770
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- rpki-client-0.2.0-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1745770
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- rpki-client-0.2.0-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com