[Bug 1935379] New: Review Request: openconnect-gateway - Connect to a VPN without routing everything through the VPN
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1935379
Bug ID: 1935379 Summary: Review Request: openconnect-gateway - Connect to a VPN without routing everything through the VPN Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: projects.rg@smart.ms QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/net/oc/openconnect-gateway.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/net/oc/openconnect-gateway-0-0.1.627... Description: Connect to a VPN without routing everything through the VPN
Fedora Account System Username: raphgro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1935379
Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com --- - Why don't youu define the full commit like this:
%global commit0 627468b537befb16c0d04e426450b2fe7eb85c9f %global shortcommit0 %(c=%{commit}; echo ${c:0:7}) %global date0 20170903
- This is the opposite: date first, then short commit:
Release: 0.1.%{date0}git%{shortcommit0}%{?dist}
[…]
%changelog * Thu Mar 04 2021 Raphael Groner raphgro@fedoraproject.org - 0-0.1.20170903git627468b - Initial package
- Use then
%prep %autosetup -n %{name}-%{commit0}
- Use a better name for the archive:
Source0: %{url}/archive/%{commit0}/%{name}-%{shortcommit0}.tar.gz
- date should be the date you took the snapshot not the date of the commit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1935379
--- Comment #2 from Raphael Groner projects.rg@smart.ms --- Thanks for your interest in this review and the proposed hints done due to my obvious laziness. But I fail to see why those trivial fixes should prevent an official approval, changes easily doable while importing, without any blocker mentioned.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1935379
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com --- I haven't run fedora-review yet, please update the SPEC and I'll continue the review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1935379
--- Comment #4 from Raphael Groner projects.rg@smart.ms ---
date should be the date you took the snapshot not the date of the commit
In another review I was told to use date of commit is better. But agreed, a snapshot from 2017 obviously is very old.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1935379
--- Comment #5 from Raphael Groner projects.rg@smart.ms --- SPEC: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/net/oc/openconnect-gateway.spec SRPM: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/net/oc/openconnect-gateway-0-0.1.201...
Task info: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=83793834
fedora-review tool does not work in my epel7 system so I can't run f-r by myself.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1935379
Raphael Groner projects.rg@smart.ms changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(zebob.m@gmail.com | |)
--- Comment #6 from Raphael Groner projects.rg@smart.ms --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #3)
I haven't run fedora-review yet, please update the SPEC and I'll continue the review.
Are you still interested in this review and can continue?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1935379
Robert Scheck redhat@linuxnetz.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |redhat@linuxnetz.de CC| |redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.d | |e Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #7 from Robert Scheck redhat@linuxnetz.de --- I guess Robert-André is currently busy (or not interested), so I'm stepping in here.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
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: "MIT License", "Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown license.
MIT License ----------- openconnect-gateway-627468b537befb16c0d04e426450b2fe7eb85c9f/LICENSE
Unknown or generated -------------------- openconnect-gateway-627468b537befb16c0d04e426450b2fe7eb85c9f/Vagrantfile openconnect-gateway-627468b537befb16c0d04e426450b2fe7eb85c9f/connect.sh openconnect-gateway-627468b537befb16c0d04e426450b2fe7eb85c9f/csd-wrapper.sh openconnect-gateway-627468b537befb16c0d04e426450b2fe7eb85c9f/get-os.sh openconnect-gateway-627468b537befb16c0d04e426450b2fe7eb85c9f/networking-config.sh openconnect-gateway-627468b537befb16c0d04e426450b2fe7eb85c9f/readme.md openconnect-gateway-627468b537befb16c0d04e426450b2fe7eb85c9f/vpn.sh
[-]: %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 [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. [!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: 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. [!]: 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 below). [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. [-]: Final provides and requires are sane (see below). [!]: 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]: 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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see below). [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 ------- openconnect-gateway.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/libexec/openconnect-gateway/get-os.sh 644 /bin/bash openconnect-gateway.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openconnect-gateway openconnect-gateway.x86_64: E: no-binary openconnect-gateway.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/bin/openconnect-gateway /usr/libexec/%{_name}/connect.sh
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- openconnect-gateway.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/libexec/openconnect-gateway/get-os.sh 644 /bin/bash openconnect-gateway.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openconnect-gateway openconnect-gateway.x86_64: E: no-binary openconnect-gateway.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/bin/openconnect-gateway /usr/libexec/%{_name}/connect.sh
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/millermatt/openconnect-gateway/archive/627468b537befb16c0... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3b45890fb3e3c2a1bdebb089d42897a9fd6d2ac18ceedafe77c1b1327244bb1f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3b45890fb3e3c2a1bdebb089d42897a9fd6d2ac18ceedafe77c1b1327244bb1f
Requires -------- openconnect-gateway (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash /usr/bin/sh bash ca-certificates openconnect wget
Provides -------- openconnect-gateway: openconnect-gateway openconnect-gateway(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -b 1935379 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: R, Perl, Python, Java, C/C++, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, PHP, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Issues/Questions ----------------
- Why is /usr/libexec/openconnect-gateway/vpn.sh packaged? It only seems to be useful for vagrant, which is in %doc. - Why is /usr/libexec/openconnect-gateway/get-os.sh packaged? Nothing seems to use it. - Is it really necessary to require bash manually, when /usr/bin/bash is auto-generated? - Minor suggestion: "%{buildroot}/%{_libexecdir}/%{name}" causes "/…//…/…", thus "%{buildroot}%{_libexecdir}/%{name}" - /usr/bin/openconnect-gateway is a dangling and absolute symlink, please correct this (not dangling and relative) - Why do you use "%global debug_package %{nil}" rather "BuildArch: noarch"? Can't this be a noarch package?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1935379
--- Comment #8 from Raphael Groner projects.rg@smart.ms --- Thanks for your useful hints.
SPEC: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/net/oc/openconnect-gateway.spec SRPM: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/net/oc/openconnect-gateway-0-0.2.201...
Task info: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=88303754
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1935379
--- Comment #9 from Raphael Groner projects.rg@smart.ms --- Hotfix additionally done for %description .
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1935379
--- Comment #10 from Robert Scheck redhat@linuxnetz.de --- Created attachment 1892996 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1892996&action=edit Diff between spec files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1935379
Robert Scheck redhat@linuxnetz.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(zebob.m@gmail.com | |) |
--- Comment #11 from Robert Scheck redhat@linuxnetz.de --- Package approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1935379
Raphael Groner projects.rg@smart.ms changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #12 from Raphael Groner projects.rg@smart.ms --- rawhide https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/45318 epel9 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/45319 epel8 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/45320
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1935379
--- Comment #13 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/openconnect-gateway
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1935379
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-235578cbd8 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-235578cbd8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1935379
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-af998c447f has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-af998c447f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1935379
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-235578cbd8 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-2022-235578cbd8
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=1935379
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-af998c447f has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-af998c447f
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=1935379
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2022-07-15 01:47:26
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-235578cbd8 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=1935379
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-af998c447f has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com