https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133114
Bug ID: 2133114 Summary: Review Request: pkcs11test - PKCS#11 Test Suite 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/pkcs11test/pkcs11test.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/pkcs11test/pkcs11test-0%5E20220308g...
Description: This package provides a test suite for PCKS#11.
Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133114
Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com --- This builds fine on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=92770849
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133114
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133114
--- Comment #2 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- There are 2 files with the name LICENSE. In the source, these are in two separate directories, but in the package they are both copied to /usr/share/licenses/pkcs11test so overwrite each other. Maybe one of the license files should be renamed?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133114
--- Comment #3 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com --- Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/pkcs11test/pkcs11test.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/pkcs11test/pkcs11test-0%5E20220308g...
Changelog: - Rename pkcs11 headers license file to avoid conflict
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133114
--- Comment #4 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- 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: "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* NTP License". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/pkcs11test/2133114-pkcs11test/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: 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. [?]: 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 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: 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: [-]: 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [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]: 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.
Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 3
pkcs11test-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/pkcs11test-0^20220308git56debd5-2.fc38.x86_64.debug pkcs11test.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pkcs11test pkcs11test-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation pkcs11test-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation pkcs11test-debugsource.x86_64: E: no-binary pkcs11test-debuginfo.x86_64: E: ldd-failed /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/pkcs11test-0^20220308git56debd5-2.fc38.x86_64.debug /usr/bin/bash: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) ldd: warning: you do not have execution permission for `/usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/pkcs11test-0^20220308git56debd5-2.fc38.x86_64.debug'
pkcs11test-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/97/c09f0dcbbf42041b721bb32d8743ef1a2d5d36 ../../../.build-id/97/c09f0dcbbf42041b721bb32d8743ef1a2d5d36 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 2.6 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/google/pkcs11test/archive/56debd53b875cf121e87a1948208a45... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4c311a3507b8fe50802748e89e66f1a0db5585f9874fd9791e9e6fffc1df0643 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4c311a3507b8fe50802748e89e66f1a0db5585f9874fd9791e9e6fffc1df0643
Requires -------- pkcs11test (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgtest.so.1.12.1()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
pkcs11test-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
pkcs11test-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- pkcs11test: bundled(pkcs11-headers) pkcs11test pkcs11test(x86-64)
pkcs11test-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) pkcs11test-debuginfo pkcs11test-debuginfo(x86-64)
pkcs11test-debugsource: pkcs11test-debugsource pkcs11test-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2133114 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, Ruby, Ocaml, R, Perl, PHP, Python, Haskell, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Comments: a) Opencryptoki is available as a package https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/opencryptoki/opencryptoki/ can tests be run against this during the build? b) Fedora abbreviation for Apache 2.0 is ASL 2.0 https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/ c) The headers are available at https://docs.oasis-open.org/pkcs11/pkcs11-base/v2.40/pkcs11-base-v2.40.html maybe they should be a separate development package?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133114
--- Comment #5 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com ---
a) Opencryptoki is available as a package https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/opencryptoki/opencryptoki/ can tests be run against this during the build?
Per the project README, the tests aren't necessarily safe to run as they are, as they'll destroy any token attached to the host, so I figured leaving them out was best. I also couldn't get this to build properly against opencryptoki due to a mismatch in types for some data structures.
b) Fedora abbreviation for Apache 2.0 is ASL 2.0 https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/
That's the old abbreviation, the current policy is to use the SPDX one instead: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/
c) The headers are available at https://docs.oasis-open.org/pkcs11/pkcs11-base/v2.40/pkcs11-base-v2.40.html maybe they should be a separate development package?
I looked into this. Unfortunately there are multiple incompatible versions of these headers, and every project seems to bundle the one they use, making maintaining a unified system version difficult. For the time being, I think keeping these bundled is the best solution.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133114
--- Comment #6 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- a) Should a bug be filed against opencryptoki or the Fedora build of opencryptoki or is this a problem with the specification? Is there a safe test that can be run, the README indicates a subset of the tests can be run. The build happens in an isolated environment, so would not expect tests run there to affect keys on the host machine.
OpenSC has tests on soft tokens https://github.com/OpenSC/OpenSC/tree/master/src/tests/p11test can something similar not be done here with a temporary token?
b) Ok. Thanks.
c) Ok. Spec indicates: "This document specifies the data types and functions available to an application requiring cryptographic services using the ANSI C programming language. The supplier of a Cryptoki library implementation typically provides these data types and functions via ANSI C header files. Generic ANSI C header files for Cryptoki are available from the PKCS#11 web page. This document and up-to-date errata for Cryptoki will also be available from the same place"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133114
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org) |
--- Comment #8 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Happy to continue review. Running the tests is nice if possible, but not a MUST. Should probably update to latest commit.
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org has canceled Package Review package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org's request for Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org's needinfo: Bug 2133114: Review Request: pkcs11test - PKCS#11 Test Suite https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133114
--- Comment #8 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Happy to continue review. Running the tests is nice if possible, but not a MUST. Should probably update to latest commit.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133114
Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |michel@michel-slm.name, | |olo@fb.com
--- Comment #9 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/pkcs11test/pkcs11test.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/pkcs11test/pkcs11test-0%5E20230418g...
Changelog: - Update to git snapshot 2cbe462 - Switch to C++14 as now required by the system gtest package - Run the tests (disabled by default due to requirements)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133114
--- Comment #10 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/pkcs11test/pkcs11test.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/pkcs11test/pkcs11test-0%5E20230418g...
Changelog: - Update license tag to comply with SPDX - Fix several typos
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133114
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/google/p | |kcs11test
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6911039 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- Not a valid SPDX expression 'Apache-2.0 and RSA'. Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1
Please know that there can be false-positives.
--- 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=2133114
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2008959 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2008959&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6911039 to 6911047
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133114
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6911047 (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=2133114
Michel Lind michel@michel-slm.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|benson_muite@emailplus.org |michel@michel-slm.name Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #14 from Michel Lind michel@michel-slm.name --- Looks fine, but please change the version number to use ~ (prerelease) rather than ^ (postrelease)
see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_upstr...
we need to allow for the possibility that upstream ends up releasing version 0, in which case 0~ < 0 but 0^ > 0 per rpmdev-vercmp
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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]: Package contains no static executables. [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: "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* NTP License". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/2133114-pkcs11test/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: 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. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 2870 bytes in 1 files. [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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. => justification provided, need hardware [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]: 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: 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: pkcs11test-0^20230418git2cbe462-2.fc41.x86_64.rpm pkcs11test-debuginfo-0^20230418git2cbe462-2.fc41.x86_64.rpm pkcs11test-debugsource-0^20230418git2cbe462-2.fc41.x86_64.rpm pkcs11test-0^20230418git2cbe462-2.fc41.src.rpm =========================================================== rpmlint session starts ========================================================== rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpc4djpjv3')] checks: 32, packages: 4
pkcs11test.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pkcs11test ===================== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 16 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.9 s =====================
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: pkcs11test-debuginfo-0^20230418git2cbe462-2.fc41.x86_64.rpm =========================================================== rpmlint session starts ========================================================== rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpwyq6lvl6')] checks: 32, packages: 1
====================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s =====================
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 3
pkcs11test.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pkcs11test 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 13 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/google/pkcs11test/archive/2cbe462c62bacf537b9a9a427a1c053... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 23a50e410ea5180febfb3e1a253edeccf783b812ee49fd515fce5befdce0043c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 23a50e410ea5180febfb3e1a253edeccf783b812ee49fd515fce5befdce0043c
Requires -------- pkcs11test (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgtest.so.1.14.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
pkcs11test-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
pkcs11test-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- pkcs11test: bundled(pkcs11-headers) pkcs11test pkcs11test(x86-64)
pkcs11test-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) pkcs11test-debuginfo pkcs11test-debuginfo(x86-64)
pkcs11test-debugsource: pkcs11test-debugsource pkcs11test-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2133114 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, fonts, Haskell, Python, R, Java, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133114
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pkcs11test
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133114
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-f5e553e7b3 (pkcs11test-0~20230418git2cbe462-1.fc39) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-f5e553e7b3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133114
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-630e2216c3 (pkcs11test-0~20230418git2cbe462-1.fc38) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-630e2216c3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133114
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2024-dc4990086a (pkcs11test-0~20230418git2cbe462-2.el9) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-dc4990086a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133114
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-f5e553e7b3 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-f5e553e7b3 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-f5e553e7b3
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=2133114
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2024-dc4990086a has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-dc4990086a
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=2133114
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-630e2216c3 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-630e2216c3 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-630e2216c3
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=2133114
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2024-02-26 00:47:06
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-630e2216c3 (pkcs11test-0~20230418git2cbe462-1.fc38) 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=2133114
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2024-dc4990086a (pkcs11test-0~20230418git2cbe462-2.el9) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133114
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-f5e553e7b3 (pkcs11test-0~20230418git2cbe462-1.fc39) has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com