[Bug 2107906] New: Review Request: rabbitsign - Digitally sign software for Texas Instruments calculators
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107906
Bug ID: 2107906 Summary: Review Request: rabbitsign - Digitally sign software for Texas Instruments calculators Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dcavalca@fb.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/rabbitsign/rabbitsign.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/rabbitsign/rabbitsign-2.1-1.fc37.sr...
Description: RabbitSign is a free implementation of the algorithms used to digitally sign software for the Texas Instruments TI-73, TI-83 Plus, TI-84 Plus, TI-89, TI-92 Plus, and Voyage 200 calculators.
RabbitSign can handle a variety of common input file formats, including GraphLink files as well as "plain" hex and binary files. It is quite a lot faster than the official application signing programs from TI, and unlike those programs, does not have any arbitrary limitations on file names or contents. It also has the ability to re-sign applications that have been signed previously.
Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107906
--- Comment #1 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=89609921
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107906
Salman cn137@protonmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |cn137@protonmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Salman cn137@protonmail.com --- THIS IS AN UNOFFICIAL REVIEW: First time seeing the autochangelog macro, it opens up to: * Mon Aug 01 2022 John Doe packager@example.com - %{version}-%{release} - local build
I beleive this is acceptable........ Will leave that to the official reviewer Otherwise looks good :)
===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "X11 License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]". 31 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/skbutt/review/review-rabbitsign/licensecheck.txt [X]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [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. [X]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [X]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [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]: 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). [ ]: Package functions as described. [X]: Latest version is packaged. [X]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107906
Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #3 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com --- Thanks! For context, %autochangelog is part of rpmautospec: https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/rpmautospec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107906
Salman Butt cn137@protonmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |cn137@protonmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107906
Salman Butt cn137@protonmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107906
--- Comment #4 from Salman Butt cn137@protonmail.com --- Re-ran the review, as per previous comment everything looks good.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107906
Salman Butt cn137@protonmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107906
Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |ppisar@redhat.com
--- Comment #5 from Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com --- The License tag is not good.
First Fedora mandates SPDX format for licenses now. Hence "GPLv3+" must be spelled as "gpl-3.0-or-later". Then src/md5.c has a different license (gpl-2.0-or-later). That file is compiled into /usr/bin/rabbitsign program. This license also must be mentioned in the License tag.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107906
--- Comment #6 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/rabbitsign/rabbitsign.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/rabbitsign/rabbitsign-2.1-1.fc39.sr...
Changelog: - update License tag
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107906
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://www.ticalc.org/arch | |ives/files/fileinfo/383/383 | |92.html
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5656213 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107906
Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com --- Thanks. In addition, I recommend build-requiring "coreutils" for "make install" which executes /usr/bin/install tool.!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107906
Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #9 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- Thanks, will fix that on import.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107906
Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|cn137@protonmail.com |ppisar@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107906
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rabbitsign
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107906
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-9228b3f45e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-9228b3f45e
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107906
Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version| |rabbitsign-2.1-1.fc39
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107906
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2023-03-20 16:36:01
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-9228b3f45e has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107906
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-f41f43113e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-f41f43113e
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107906
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-5c99632e61 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-5c99632e61
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107906
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-a4d5d53f0d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-a4d5d53f0d
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107906
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-f41f43113e has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-f41f43113e
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=2107906
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-5c99632e61 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-5c99632e61 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-5c99632e61
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=2107906
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-a4d5d53f0d 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 --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-a4d5d53f0d *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-a4d5d53f0d
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=2107906
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-f41f43113e has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107906
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-a4d5d53f0d has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107906
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-5c99632e61 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com