[Bug 1537398] New: Review Request: spectre-meltdown-checker - Spectre & Meltdown vulnerability/ mitigation checker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1537398
Bug ID: 1537398 Summary: Review Request: spectre-meltdown-checker - Spectre & Meltdown vulnerability/mitigation checker Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: reto.gantenbein@linuxmonk.ch QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/ganto/spectre-meltdown-checke... SRPM URL: https://linuxmonk.ch/packages/spectre-meltdown-checker/fedora/SRPMS/spectre-... Description: Spectre & Meltdown vulnerability/mitigation checker for Linux Fedora Account System Username: ganto
Hi. I created a RPM on COPR [1] for the spectre-meltdown-checker script which is developed at [2]. It helps users to identify in what way their machine is affected of the different Spectre and Meltdown security issues and how far they are already mitigated on their machine. I assumed that maybe a larger part of the Fedora users would be interested in such a check that's why I propose this package here for inclusion into Fedora and EPEL.
[1]: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/ganto/spectre-meltdown-checker/ [2]: https://github.com/speed47/spectre-meltdown-checker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1537398
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- You're not a member of the packager group, you'll need to find a sponsor. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group Try introducing yourself on the devel mailing list too.
Package is fine otherwise, let me know whern
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/spectre-meltdown- checker/review-spectre-meltdown-checker/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: spectre-meltdown-checker-0.32-0.3.fc28.noarch.rpm spectre-meltdown-checker-0.32-0.3.fc28.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1537398
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ngompa13@gmail.com Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
--- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- I will sponsor this packager into the packagers collection, provided this package is accepted.
I have seen his work in other packages (primarily the LXD COPR repo), and he does a good job with his packaging and trying to follow the Fedora packaging guidelines.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1537398
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(zebob.m@gmail.com | |)
--- Comment #3 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- ganto is now sponsored in the packagers group, good luck!
@Robert-Andre, please complete the review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1537398
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1537398
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST Flags|needinfo?(zebob.m@gmail.com |fedora-review+ |) |
--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- This package is approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1537398
--- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/spectre-meltdown-checker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1537398
Reto Gantenbein reto.gantenbein@linuxmonk.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2018-02-13 13:04:14
--- Comment #6 from Reto Gantenbein reto.gantenbein@linuxmonk.ch --- Thanks a lot for your support. The package is in the Fedora stable repositories now. Somehow the "Fedora Update System" didn't properly propagate the changes to the bug report:
spectre-meltdown-checker-0.33-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-d4404e0708
spectre-meltdown-checker-0.33-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-e3d1c4e564
The packages for the EPEL repositories are also on its way. If anyone could help accelerating this, it would be much appreciated.
I guess this bug report can be closed now. Feel free to open another bug if you have any issue with this package.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com