[Bug 2138445] New: Review Request: rust-sequoia-policy-config - Configure Sequoia using a configuration file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138445
Bug ID: 2138445 Summary: Review Request: rust-sequoia-policy-config - Configure Sequoia using a configuration file Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: decathorpe@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-sequoia-policy-config.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-sequoia-policy-config-0.3.0-1.fc37....
Description: Configure Sequoia using a configuration file.
Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe
koji scratch build for rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=93537549
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138445
Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2138400
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138400 [Bug 2138400] rust-rpm-sequoia-1.1.1 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138445
Alexander Sosedkin asosedki@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |asosedki@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138445
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Sosedkin asosedki@redhat.com --- crypto-policies-20221110-1.git87a75f4.fc38 provides a corresponding file at `/etc/crypto-policies/back-ends/sequoia.config` location, one can use `update-crypto-policies --set (LEGACY|DEFAULT|FIPS|FUTURE|...)` to adjust the values there.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138445
Panu Matilainen pmatilai@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138445
Panu Matilainen pmatilai@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |pmatilai@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138445
--- Comment #2 from Panu Matilainen pmatilai@redhat.com --- I'll work through the fedora-review template later, but this bit caught my eye in the old fashioned eyeballs over the spec style:
License: LGPL-2.0-or-later
According to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main that ought to be "LGPLv2+"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138445
--- Comment #3 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- The wiki page is outdated (no idea why it doesn't redirect to the new fedora-legal docs): https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/
And there, LGPL-2.0-or-later is listed as the correct identifier.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138445
--- Comment #4 from Panu Matilainen pmatilai@redhat.com --- Ehh, indeed... the top of the wiki page *does* say it's outdated, but I jumped right into the middle and never saw it... Sorry about the noise then.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138445
Panu Matilainen pmatilai@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Panu Matilainen pmatilai@redhat.com ---
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/sequoia- policy-config-0.3.0/LICENSE.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files
(this is a harmless warning due to an rpm limitation, basically)
===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/2138445-rust-sequoia-policy- config/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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 [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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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 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]: 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 0 bytes in 0 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 rust- sequoia-policy-config-devel , rust-sequoia-policy-config+default-devel [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. [-]: 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. [?]: 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 attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
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: 2
rust-sequoia-policy-config+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/sequoia-policy-config/0.3.0/download#/sequoi... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d09c419dbf3c062d23d5258ca69acb5222b5e8f8e796d0e31db121144eefc1a6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d09c419dbf3c062d23d5258ca69acb5222b5e8f8e796d0e31db121144eefc1a6
Requires -------- rust-sequoia-policy-config-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(anyhow/default) >= 1.0.18 with crate(anyhow/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(chrono/default) >= 0.4.0 with crate(chrono/default) < 0.5.0~) (crate(sequoia-openpgp/crypto-nettle) >= 1.0.0 with crate(sequoia-openpgp/crypto-nettle) < 2.0.0~) (crate(serde/default) >= 1.0.0 with crate(serde/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(thiserror/default) >= 1.0.2 with crate(thiserror/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(toml/default) >= 0.5.0 with crate(toml/default) < 0.6.0~) cargo
rust-sequoia-policy-config+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(sequoia-policy-config)
Provides -------- rust-sequoia-policy-config-devel: crate(sequoia-policy-config) rust-sequoia-policy-config-devel
rust-sequoia-policy-config+default-devel: crate(sequoia-policy-config/default) rust-sequoia-policy-config+default-devel
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2138445 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, PHP, fonts, Ocaml, Perl, Python, R, C/C++, SugarActivity, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138445
--- Comment #6 from Panu Matilainen pmatilai@redhat.com --- Just FWIW, if you need a reviewer or tester for these rpm-sequoia related thingies, feel free to CC or ping me otherwise.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138445
Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #7 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- I'll keep that in mind, thanks for the review!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138445
--- Comment #8 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-sequoia-policy-config
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138445
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-bad359d072 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-bad359d072
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138445
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2022-11-14 17:43:51
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-bad359d072 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com