7:47 a.m.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217146
Bug ID: 2217146
Summary: Review Request: boxfort - Convenient & cross-platform
sandboxing C library
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: topazus(a)outlook.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/boxfort.spec
SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/boxfort-0.1.4-1.fc39.src.rpm
Description: Convenient & cross-platform sandboxing C library
Fedora Account System Username: topazus
koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=102521560
--
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=2217146
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
8:12 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2217146] Review Request: boxfort - Convenient & cross-platform
sandboxing C library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217146
Felix Wang <topazus(a)outlook.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment|0 |updated
--- Comment #0 has been edited ---
Spec URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/boxfort.spec
SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/boxfort-0.1.4-1.fc39.src.rpm
Description: Convenient & cross-platform sandboxing C library
Fedora Account System Username: topazus
koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=102522213
--
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=2217146
12:03 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2217146] Review Request: boxfort - Convenient & cross-platform
sandboxing C library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217146
Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |benson_muite(a)emailplus.org
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org> ---
[fedora-review-service-build]
--
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=2217146
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
12:08 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2217146] Review Request: boxfort - Convenient & cross-platform
sandboxing C library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217146
Fedora Review Service <fedora-review-bot(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Review Service <fedora-review-bot(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6969467
(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=2217146
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
2:50 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2217146] Review Request: boxfort - Convenient & cross-platform
sandboxing C library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217146
Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords|AutomationTriaged |
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags| |fedora-review?
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |benson_muite(a)emailplus.org
--- Comment #3 from Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org> ---
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
[-]: 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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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.
[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", "MIT License", "*No
copyright* MIT
License". 19 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/fedora/2217146-boxfort/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[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.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: 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 2238 bytes in 2 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).
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in boxfort-
devel
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: 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.
[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: boxfort-0.1.4-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm
boxfort-devel-0.1.4-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm
boxfort-debuginfo-0.1.4-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm
boxfort-debugsource-0.1.4-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm
boxfort-0.1.4-1.fc40.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/tmp8cjbb6nx')]
checks: 32, packages: 5
boxfort.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('sandboxing', 'Summary(en_US) sandboxing
->
sand boxing, sand-boxing, sandbagging')
boxfort.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('sandboxing', '%description -l en_US
sandboxing -> sand boxing, sand-boxing, sandbagging')
boxfort.src: E: spelling-error ('sandboxing', 'Summary(en_US) sandboxing
->
sand boxing, sand-boxing, sandbagging')
boxfort.src: E: spelling-error ('sandboxing', '%description -l en_US
sandboxing
-> sand boxing, sand-boxing, sandbagging')
boxfort.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: boxfort-build-shared-lib.patch
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 1 warnings, 30 filtered, 4
badness; has taken 0.8 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: boxfort-debuginfo-0.1.4-1.fc40.aarch64.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/tmprjizzxyj')]
checks: 32, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0
badness; has taken 0.2 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: 4
boxfort.aarch64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libboxfort.so.0.1.4
main (/usr/lib64/libboxfort.so.0.1.4)
boxfort.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('sandboxing', 'Summary(en_US) sandboxing
->
sand boxing, sand-boxing, sandbagging')
boxfort.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('sandboxing', '%description -l en_US
sandboxing -> sand boxing, sand-boxing, sandbagging')
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings, 26 filtered, 3
badness; has taken 0.7 s
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/Snaipe/BoxFort/archive/v0.1.4/BoxFort-0.1.4.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
67129d585722739e78af766a9ce5fb91f1359740e3b12a2ac0c2f8d7049be66b
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
67129d585722739e78af766a9ce5fb91f1359740e3b12a2ac0c2f8d7049be66b
Requires
--------
boxfort (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
boxfort-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/pkg-config
boxfort
libboxfort.so.0.1()(64bit)
boxfort-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
boxfort-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides
--------
boxfort:
boxfort
boxfort(aarch-64)
libboxfort.so.0.1()(64bit)
boxfort-devel:
boxfort-devel
boxfort-devel(aarch-64)
pkgconfig(boxfort)
boxfort-debuginfo:
boxfort-debuginfo
boxfort-debuginfo(aarch-64)
debuginfo(build-id)
libboxfort.so.0.1.4-0.1.4-1.fc40.aarch64.debug()(64bit)
boxfort-debugsource:
boxfort-debugsource
boxfort-debugsource(aarch-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2217146
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Perl, Python, Java, R, fonts, Ocaml, PHP,
Haskell
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments:
a) README.md is not needed in the devel package, it is in the main package
which the devel package requires
b) Please remove the extra %license in the file listing for the devel package,
main package has license and
devel package requires main package.
c) For the devel package please use:
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
instead of
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
d) There is a warning
boxfort.aarch64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libboxfort.so.0.1.4
main (/usr/lib64/libboxfort.so.0.1.4)
Running
$ ld libboxfort.so.0.1.4
ld: warning: cannot find entry symbol _start; not setting start address
ld: libboxfort.so.0.1.4: undefined reference to `main'
Maybe this is something to report upstream?
--
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=2217146
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
3:18 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2217146] Review Request: boxfort - Convenient & cross-platform
sandboxing C library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217146
--- Comment #4 from Felix Wang <topazus(a)outlook.com> ---
Spec URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/topazus/test-review/fe...
SRPM URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/topazus/test-review/fe...
The comments of a-c) has been resolved.
The comment d), it seems this rpmlint issue now.
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/topazus/test-review/fe...
--
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=2217146
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
3:27 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2217146] Review Request: boxfort - Convenient & cross-platform
sandboxing C library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217146
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Review Service <fedora-review-bot(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
Created attachment 2030991
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2030991&action=edit
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6969467 to 7400776
--
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=2217146
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
3:27 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2217146] Review Request: boxfort - Convenient & cross-platform
sandboxing C library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217146
Fedora Review Service <fedora-review-bot(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Review Service <fedora-review-bot(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7400776
(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=2217146
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
31
days inactive
345
days old
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
7 comments
1 participants
participants (1)
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com