[Bug 2091668] New: Review Request: oddjob-gpupdate - oddjob helper for pam_oddjob_gpupdate module to apply group policy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091668
Bug ID: 2091668 Summary: Review Request: oddjob-gpupdate - oddjob helper for pam_oddjob_gpupdate module to apply group policy Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: pfilipen@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://pfilipen.fedorapeople.org/oddjob-gpupdate/oddjob-gpupdate.spec SRPM URL: https://pfilipen.fedorapeople.org/oddjob-gpupdate/oddjob-gpupdate-0.2.0-1.fc... Description: This package contains the oddjob helper which can be used by the pam_oddjob_gpupdate module to apply group policy objects at login-time. Fedora Account System Username: pfilipen
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091668
Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(nalin@redhat.com) CC| |asn@redhat.com, | |nalin@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com --- Nalin, could you review the package?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091668
Nalin Dahyabhai nalin@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(nalin@redhat.com) |
--- Comment #2 from Nalin Dahyabhai nalin@redhat.com --- The spec file looks sane, and the permissions it sets up for running gpoa look similar to what we set up for the mkdir helper. I'm not familiar with what gpoa does, though, so I can't speak to that. I don't think that registering its D-Bus service name as "com.redhat.oddjob_gpupdate" is consistent with recommended practices.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091668
Pavel Filipensky pfilipen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(nalin@redhat.com)
--- Comment #3 from Pavel Filipensky pfilipen@redhat.com --- Can you please explain what D-Bus service name instead of "com.redhat.oddjob_gpupdate" would be consistent with recommended practices? The name "com.redhat.oddjob_gpupdate" is already used by Suse and AltLinux.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091668
Nalin Dahyabhai nalin@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(nalin@redhat.com) |
--- Comment #4 from Nalin Dahyabhai nalin@redhat.com --- A dns-domain-name-but-reversed that better reflects the authorship? The current name implies that the upstream for it is, or is affiliated with, Red Hat. It's more an upstream issue than a packaging issue, though.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091668
--- Comment #5 from Pavel Filipensky pfilipen@redhat.com --- The name change should be done in the upstream first. I will start an upstream change. We should created the Fedora package already now, since we do not know how long it will take to get it accepted.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091668
Pavel Filipensky pfilipen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(nalin@redhat.com)
--- Comment #6 from Pavel Filipensky pfilipen@redhat.com --- Nalin, do you have a suggestion for the new name? The upstream package comes from https://github.com/altlinux/oddjob-gpupdate.git.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091668
Nalin Dahyabhai nalin@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(nalin@redhat.com) |
--- Comment #7 from Nalin Dahyabhai nalin@redhat.com --- My first guess would be something beginning with "org.altlinux.", but that is _definitely_ a question that upstream should weigh in on.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091668
Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |asn@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091668
--- Comment #8 from Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com --- + autoreconf -if Can't exec "aclocal": No such file or directory at /usr/share/autoconf/Autom4te/FileUtils.pm line 274. autoreconf: error: aclocal failed with exit status: 2
Your spec file misses:
BuildRequires: automake
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091668
--- Comment #9 from Pavel Filipensky pfilipen@redhat.com --- * Issue for upstream to rename D-Bus service name "com.redhat.oddjob_gpupdate" was created: https://github.com/altlinux/oddjob-gpupdate/issues/2
* specfile update for "BuildRequires: automake" is blocked by fedorapeople upload issue. Will update once it is fixed.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091668
--- Comment #10 from Pavel Filipensky pfilipen@redhat.com --- "BuildRequires: automake" is added to https://pfilipen.fedorapeople.org/oddjob-gpupdate/oddjob-gpupdate.spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091668
--- Comment #11 from Pavel Filipensky pfilipen@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://pfilipen.fedorapeople.org/oddjob-gpupdate/oddjob-gpupdate.spec SRPM URL: https://pfilipen.fedorapeople.org/oddjob-gpupdate/oddjob-gpupdate-0.2.0-1.fc...
* Tue Jun 14 2022 Pavel Filipenský pfilipen@redhat.com - 0.2.0-2 - Fix "BuildRequires: automake"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091668
--- Comment #12 from Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com --- The SRPM URL is incorrect it points to release 1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091668
--- Comment #13 from Pavel Filipensky pfilipen@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://pfilipen.fedorapeople.org/oddjob-gpupdate/oddjob-gpupdate.spec SRPM URL: https://pfilipen.fedorapeople.org/oddjob-gpupdate/oddjob-gpupdate-0.2.0-2.fc...
* Tue Jun 14 2022 Pavel Filipenský pfilipen@redhat.com - 0.2.0-2 - Fix "BuildRequires: automake"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091668
Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(pfilipen@redhat.c | |om)
--- Comment #14 from Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com --- + autoreconf -if aclocal: warning: couldn't open directory 'm4': No such file or directory configure.ac:242: warning: The macro `AC_CONFIG_HEADER' is obsolete. configure.ac:242: You should run autoupdate. ./lib/autoconf/status.m4:719: AC_CONFIG_HEADER is expanded from... configure.ac:242: the top level configure.ac:272: warning: AC_OUTPUT should be used without arguments. configure.ac:272: You should run autoupdate. configure.ac:13: error: possibly undefined macro: AC_PROG_LIBTOOL If this token and others are legitimate, please use m4_pattern_allow. See the Autoconf documentation. autoreconf: error: /usr/bin/autoconf failed with exit status: 1
Looks like another BR is missing:
BuildRequires: libtool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091668
Pavel Filipensky pfilipen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(pfilipen@redhat.c | |om) |
--- Comment #15 from Pavel Filipensky pfilipen@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://pfilipen.fedorapeople.org/oddjob-gpupdate/oddjob-gpupdate.spec SRPM URL: https://pfilipen.fedorapeople.org/oddjob-gpupdate/oddjob-gpupdate-0.2.0-3.fc...
* Wed Jun 15 2022 Pavel Filipenský pfilipen@redhat.com - 0.2.0-3 - Fix "BuildRequires: libtool"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091668
Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(pfilipen@redhat.c | |om)
--- Comment #16 from Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Generic: [..] [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
Can you add links as a comment from where you got the patches?
[!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools
AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: oddjob-gpupdate-0.2.0/configure.ac:13
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091668
Pavel Filipensky pfilipen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(pfilipen@redhat.c | |om) |
--- Comment #17 from Pavel Filipensky pfilipen@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://pfilipen.fedorapeople.org/oddjob-gpupdate/oddjob-gpupdate.spec SRPM URL: https://pfilipen.fedorapeople.org/oddjob-gpupdate/oddjob-gpupdate-0.2.1-1.fc...
Note: the Patch3: 0004-Fix-obsoleted-m4s.patch for this specfile is not upstream yet...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091668
--- Comment #18 from Pavel Filipensky pfilipen@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://pfilipen.fedorapeople.org/oddjob-gpupdate/oddjob-gpupdate.spec SRPM URL: https://pfilipen.fedorapeople.org/oddjob-gpupdate/oddjob-gpupdate-0.2.1-2.fc...
1) AC_PROG_LIBTOOL PR https://github.com/altlinux/oddjob-gpupdate/pull/4.patch 2) /bin/dbus-send --> /usr/bin/dbus-send
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091668
--- Comment #19 from Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com --- 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]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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", "BSD 3-Clause License", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/asn/workspace/package/fedora/REVIEW/2091668-oddjob- gpupdate/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/security, /etc/dbus-1, /etc/dbus-1/system.d [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 [-]: 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. [-]: 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 2 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [ ]: 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. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091668
Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091668
--- Comment #20 from Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com --- 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]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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", "BSD 3-Clause License", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/asn/workspace/package/fedora/REVIEW/2091668-oddjob- gpupdate/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/security, /etc/dbus-1, /etc/dbus-1/system.d [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 [-]: 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. [-]: 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 2 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: 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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091668
--- Comment #21 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/oddjob-gpupdate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091668
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-f4739d3274 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-f4739d3274
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091668
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2022-06-29 08:13:21
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-f4739d3274 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