[Bug 2176197] New: Review Request: rust-bcrypt-pbkdf - Bcrypt-pbkdf password-based key derivation function
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2176197
Bug ID: 2176197 Summary: Review Request: rust-bcrypt-pbkdf - Bcrypt-pbkdf password-based key derivation function Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: manisandro@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/rust-bcrypt-pbkdf.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/rust-bcrypt-pbkdf-0.8.1-1.fc39.src.rpm Description: Bcrypt-pbkdf password-based key derivation function Fedora Account System Username: smani
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2176197
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://crates.io/crates/bc | |rypt-pbkdf
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5603285 (failed)
Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.
- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field
--- 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2176197
blinxen h-k-81@hotmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |h-k-81@hotmail.com CC| |h-k-81@hotmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #2 from blinxen h-k-81@hotmail.com --- Taking this review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2176197
--- Comment #3 from blinxen h-k-81@hotmail.com --- Since the submission of this review a new version has been released. Can you update to the latest version of the crate?
That being said, the spec file was generated with `rust2rpm` and no patches / modification were made to it. The LICENSE is OK and the package builds fine on my machine.
I will finish this review after you updated to the latest version.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2176197
--- Comment #4 from Sandro Mani manisandro@gmail.com --- Thanks for the review - I need 0.8.x for the time being as part of the dependency chain to update python-bcrypt [1]
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120929#c9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2176197
blinxen h-k-81@hotmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|NEW |POST
--- Comment #5 from blinxen h-k-81@hotmail.com --- This seems good to me.
APPROVED
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/bcrypt- pbkdf-0.8.1/CHANGELOG.md See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files
===== 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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "MIT License". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/hka/dev/opensource/fedora/reviews/rust-bcrypt- pbkdf/2176197-rust-bcrypt-pbkdf/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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]: 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- bcrypt-pbkdf-devel , rust-bcrypt-pbkdf+default-devel , rust-bcrypt- pbkdf+std-devel , rust-bcrypt-pbkdf+zeroize-devel [x]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. Reason: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2176197#c4 [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. [-]: 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]: 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 ------- Checking: rust-bcrypt-pbkdf-devel-0.8.1-1.fc39.noarch.rpm rust-bcrypt-pbkdf+default-devel-0.8.1-1.fc39.noarch.rpm rust-bcrypt-pbkdf+std-devel-0.8.1-1.fc39.noarch.rpm rust-bcrypt-pbkdf+zeroize-devel-0.8.1-1.fc39.noarch.rpm rust-bcrypt-pbkdf-0.8.1-1.fc39.src.rpm ============================================================================================================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpb3johp6p')] checks: 31, packages: 5
rust-bcrypt-pbkdf+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-bcrypt-pbkdf+std-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-bcrypt-pbkdf+zeroize-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation ============================================================================= 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s ============================================================================
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: 4
rust-bcrypt-pbkdf+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-bcrypt-pbkdf+std-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-bcrypt-pbkdf+zeroize-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/bcrypt-pbkdf/0.8.1/download#/bcrypt-pbkdf-0.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f4ef233ffa9cb9c7820b2b0e9efd0821ed180e866c9120ec9f45518659742074 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f4ef233ffa9cb9c7820b2b0e9efd0821ed180e866c9120ec9f45518659742074
Requires -------- rust-bcrypt-pbkdf-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(blowfish/bcrypt) >= 0.9.1 with crate(blowfish/bcrypt) < 0.10.0~) (crate(blowfish/default) >= 0.9.1 with crate(blowfish/default) < 0.10.0~) (crate(pbkdf2) >= 0.10.1 with crate(pbkdf2) < 0.11.0~) (crate(sha2) >= 0.10.2 with crate(sha2) < 0.11.0~) cargo
rust-bcrypt-pbkdf+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(bcrypt-pbkdf) crate(bcrypt-pbkdf/std)
rust-bcrypt-pbkdf+std-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(bcrypt-pbkdf)
rust-bcrypt-pbkdf+zeroize-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(zeroize) >= 1.0.0 with crate(zeroize) < 1.6.0~) cargo crate(bcrypt-pbkdf)
Provides -------- rust-bcrypt-pbkdf-devel: crate(bcrypt-pbkdf) rust-bcrypt-pbkdf-devel
rust-bcrypt-pbkdf+default-devel: crate(bcrypt-pbkdf/default) rust-bcrypt-pbkdf+default-devel
rust-bcrypt-pbkdf+std-devel: crate(bcrypt-pbkdf/std) rust-bcrypt-pbkdf+std-devel
rust-bcrypt-pbkdf+zeroize-devel: crate(bcrypt-pbkdf/zeroize) rust-bcrypt-pbkdf+zeroize-devel
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2176197 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Perl, SugarActivity, Python, C/C++, Java, R, PHP, fonts, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2176197
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-bcrypt-pbkdf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2176197
Sandro Mani manisandro@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2023-03-12 13:59:04
--- Comment #7 from Sandro Mani manisandro@gmail.com --- Thanks!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2176197
Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |decathorpe@gmail.com
--- Comment #8 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Please don't forget about these rRecommended post-import tasks:
- add @rust-sig with "commit" access as package co-maintainer
- set bugzilla assignee overrides to @rust-sig (optional)
- set up package on release-monitoring.org: project: $crate homepage: https://crates.io/crates/$crate backend: crates.io version scheme: semantic version filter: alpha;beta;rc;pre distro: Fedora Package: rust-$crate
- track package in koschei for all built branches
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2176197
--- Comment #9 from Sandro Mani manisandro@gmail.com --- Done
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com