[Bug 2207871] New: Review Request: libcanlock - Create and verify RFC 8315 Netnews Cancel-Locks

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2207871

            Bug ID: 2207871
           Summary: Review Request: libcanlock - Create and verify RFC
                    8315 Netnews Cancel-Locks
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
          Hardware: All
                OS: Linux
            Status: NEW
         Component: Package Review
          Severity: medium
          Priority: medium
          Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
          Reporter: dominik(a)greysector.net
        QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
                CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
    Classification: Fedora



Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/libcanlock/libcanlock.spec
SRPM URL:
https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/libcanlock/libcanlock-3.3.0-1.fc3...
Description:
A library for creating and verifying RFC 8315 Netnews Cancel-Locks.
This implementation uses the recommended algorithm from Section 4 with HMAC
based on the same hash function as <scheme>.

Fedora Account System Username: rathann


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2207871

[Bug 2207871] Review Request: libcanlock - Create and verify RFC 8315 Netnews Cancel-Locks

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2207871

Fedora Review Service <fedora-review-bot(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                URL|                            |https://micha.freeshell.org
                   |                            |/libcanlock



--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service <fedora-review-bot(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; ---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5927208
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-...

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.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2207871

[Bug 2207871] Review Request: libcanlock - Create and verify RFC 8315 Netnews Cancel-Locks

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2207871

Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org&gt; changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org    |benson_muite(a)emailplus.org
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |benson_muite(a)emailplus.org
           Doc Type|---                         |If docs needed, set a value
              Flags|                            |fedora-review?



--- Comment #2 from Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org&gt; ---
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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "MIT License BSD 3-Clause License", "Unknown or
generated",
     "FSF All Permissive License", "ICU License", "ICU License
[generated
     file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) GNU General
     Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License
     [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later
     [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later",
     "Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer - sell variant [generated
     file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "MIT
License",
     "BSD 3-Clause License", "FSF Unlimited License (with License
     Retention) GNU General Public License, Version 2", "FSF Unlimited
     License (with License Retention)". 44 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in
    
/home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/libcanclock/2207871-libcanlock/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: 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.
[ ]: 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 40960 bytes in 12 files.
[ ]: 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).
[!]: 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).
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in canlock
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[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: libcanlock-3.3.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          libcanlock-devel-3.3.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          canlock-3.3.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          libcanlock-debuginfo-3.3.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          libcanlock-debugsource-3.3.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          libcanlock-3.3.0-1.fc39.src.rpm
============================================== 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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp78_v73z5')]
checks: 31, packages: 6

libcanlock-devel.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/doc/libcanlock-devel/secret_512bits
=============== 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0
badness; has taken 5.6 s ===============




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: libcanlock-debuginfo-3.3.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
============================================== 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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmptjy6qczn')]
checks: 31, packages: 1

=============== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0
badness; has taken 1.9 s ===============





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: 5

libcanlock-devel.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/doc/libcanlock-devel/secret_512bits
 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken
5.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://micha.freeshell.org/libcanlock/src/libcanlock-3.3.0.tar.bz2 :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
a709f59d6611031c293b483cfa0be6c37d6c68220cc94aee44e4a9eabf76988d
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
a709f59d6611031c293b483cfa0be6c37d6c68220cc94aee44e4a9eabf76988d


Requires
--------
libcanlock (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

libcanlock-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    libcanlock(x86-64)
    libcanlock-hp.so.3()(64bit)
    libcanlock.so.3()(64bit)

canlock (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcanlock.so.3()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

libcanlock-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

libcanlock-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
libcanlock:
    libcanlock
    libcanlock(x86-64)
    libcanlock-hp.so.3()(64bit)
    libcanlock.so.3()(64bit)

libcanlock-devel:
    libcanlock-devel
    libcanlock-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(libcanlock-3)
    pkgconfig(libcanlock-hp-3)

canlock:
    canlock
    canlock(x86-64)

libcanlock-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    libcanlock-debuginfo
    libcanlock-debuginfo(x86-64)
    libcanlock-hp.so.3.0.3-3.3.0-1.fc39.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
    libcanlock.so.3.1.0-3.3.0-1.fc39.x86_64.debug()(64bit)

libcanlock-debugsource:
    libcanlock-debugsource
    libcanlock-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2207871
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++
Disabled plugins: fonts, Haskell, SugarActivity, Java, Ocaml, PHP, R, Python,
Ruby, Perl
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comments:
a)  ICU license also seems to be used
b) COPYING file does not contain license text, but a list of types of license
used
c) There is a COPYING file in /libcanlock-3.3.0/hp that should also be
packaged, though most source files have
license information.
d) Please add a license breakdown to the spec
e) Some of the license are listed as like other types of license. They may need
to get SPDX identifiers
as separate licenses


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2207871

[Bug 2207871] Review Request: libcanlock - Create and verify RFC 8315 Netnews Cancel-Locks

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2207871



--- Comment #3 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik(a)greysector.net&gt;
---
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #2)
[...]
>  Comments:
>  a) ICU license also seems to be used 
Indeed. The sources call it MIT-like, but it's ICU.

>  b) COPYING file does not contain license text, but a list of types
> of
>  license used 
I will contact upstream and ask them to provide license texts, too.

>  c) There is a COPYING file in /libcanlock-3.3.0/hp that should also
> be
>  packaged, though most source files have license information. 
Added.

>  d) Please add a license breakdown to the spec 
Done.

>  e) Some of the license are listed as like other types of license.
> They may
>  need to get SPDX identifiers as separate licenses 
What the source code calls "MIT-like" is ICU (100% template match).


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2207871

Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

[Bug 2207871] Review Request: libcanlock - Create and verify RFC 8315 Netnews Cancel-Locks

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2207871



--- Comment #4 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik(a)greysector.net&gt;
---
Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/libcanlock/libcanlock.spec
SRPM URL:
https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/libcanlock/libcanlock-3.3.0-2.fc4...

* Mon Jan 01 2024 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik(a)greysector.net&gt; -
3.3.0-2
- Address review comments


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2207871

Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

[Bug 2207871] Review Request: libcanlock - Create and verify RFC 8315 Netnews Cancel-Locks

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2207871



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Review Service <fedora-review-bot(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; ---
Created attachment 2006748
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2006748&action=edit
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5927208 to 6843494


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2207871

Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

[Bug 2207871] Review Request: libcanlock - Create and verify RFC 8315 Netnews Cancel-Locks

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2207871



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Review Service <fedora-review-bot(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; ---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6843494
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-...

Found issues:

- Not a valid SPDX expression 'BSD-3-Clause and ICU'.
  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.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2207871

Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...