[Bug 2049681] New: Review Request: s2n-tls - s2n: an implementation of the TLS/SSL protocols utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2049681
Bug ID: 2049681 Summary: Review Request: s2n-tls - s2n: an implementation of the TLS/SSL protocols utilities Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: davdunc@amazon.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://davdunc.fedorapeople.org/awscli-2-rpms/s2n-tls.spec SRPM URL: https://davdunc.fedorapeople.org/awscli-2-rpms/s2n-tls-1.3.2-2.fc35.src.rpm Description: s2n-tls is a C99 implementation of the TLS/SSL protocols that is designed to be simple, small, fast, and with security as a priority. It is released and licensed under the Apache License 2.0. Fedora Account System Username: davdunc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2049681
--- Comment #1 from Major Hayden 🤠 mhayden@redhat.com --- I'm still waiting on COPR to finish its builds, but there are compile issues on s390x:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mhayden/awscliv2/fedora-r...
If s390x isn't important for you, you may want to add something like this to the spec file:
ExcludeArch: s390x
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2049681
--- Comment #2 from Major Hayden 🤠 mhayden@redhat.com --- Using the `forgemeta` macros could save some work down the road:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_using_...
Your spec could look something like this:
%global srcname s2n-tls %global forgeurl https://github.com/davdunc/%%7Bname%7D Version: 1.3.2 %global tag %{version} %forgemeta
Name: %{srcname} Release: %autorelease Summary: s2n: an implementation of the TLS/SSL protocols utilities
License: ASL 2.0 URL: %forgeurl Source0: %forgesource
Then your %prep just becomes:
%prep %forgeautosetup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2049681
Major Hayden 🤠 mhayden@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(davdunc@amazon.co | |m) Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from Major Hayden 🤠 mhayden@redhat.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: =======
- Use ExcludeArch for s390x since it does not build successfully there. - Consider using the forgemeta macros for handling source. - Use the %dir macro to ensure the created directories are properly owned (see [!] items below). - Are there any valid/useful tests to run during the package build?
===== 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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0", "OpenSSL License Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* MIT License", "*No copyright* Public domain MIT License", "*No copyright* Public domain", "CMU License", "MIT License". 6789 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/s2n-tls/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/s2n/cmake, /usr/lib64/s2n/cmake/modules, /usr/lib64/s2n/cmake/shared, /usr/lib64/s2n [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/s2n/cmake/modules, /usr/lib64/s2n/cmake, /usr/lib64/s2n, /usr/lib64/s2n/cmake/shared [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. [!]: 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 143360 bytes in 5 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 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: [!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in s2n-tls- libs , s2n-tls-devel [x]: 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. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [!]: 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]: 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 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.
Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Unversioned so-files -------------------- s2n-tls-libs: /usr/lib64/libs2n.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/davdunc/s2n-tls/archive/v1.3.2/s2n-tls-1.3.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9a43f97cc3c751c19a03fb6e07eea10e1452034c20a3656a333c3d068756a888 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9a43f97cc3c751c19a03fb6e07eea10e1452034c20a3656a333c3d068756a888
Requires -------- s2n-tls (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): openssl
s2n-tls-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) s2n-tls(x86-64)
s2n-tls-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): openssl-devel s2n-tls-libs(x86-64)
s2n-tls-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- s2n-tls: s2n-tls s2n-tls(x86-64)
s2n-tls-libs: libs2n.so()(64bit) s2n-tls-libs s2n-tls-libs(x86-64)
s2n-tls-devel: s2n-tls-devel s2n-tls-devel(x86-64)
s2n-tls-debugsource: s2n-tls-debugsource s2n-tls-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name s2n-tls --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, Ocaml, SugarActivity, fonts, Python, Perl, Haskell, Java, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2049681
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) | Resolution|NOTABUG |--- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Keywords| |Reopened
--- Comment #5 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- This is not dead, afaik.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2049681
Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2049681
Major Hayden 🤠 mhayden@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(davdunc@amazon.co | |m)
--- Comment #6 from Major Hayden 🤠 mhayden@redhat.com --- The needinfo fell off. Putting it back on...
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com