https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1947670
Bug ID: 1947670 Summary: Review Request: Monocypher - Boring crypto that simply works Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ppolakov@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://gist.github.com/ppolakov/b51d20a4ee53d42719bbb7e280dd9370 SRPM URL: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/patrikp/Monocypher/ Description:
Hello. This is my first package and I would be very thankful if somebody could review it. I am also in need of a sponsor. I have used rpmlint on the SPEC file, the Binary RPM, and the SRPM -- I am getting no errors and no warnings. I am also including a link for a successful koji build (for bonus points). Disclaimer: I am merely the packager, not the upstream maintainer.
Fedora Account System Username: patrikp koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=65520685
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1947670
Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |sanjay.ankur@gmail.com Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1947670
Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Summary|Review Request: Monocypher |Review Request: monocypher |- Boring crypto that simply |- Boring crypto that simply |works |works
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com --- - Please use lowercase for monocypher
- This needs to be arch specific (add isa):
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
- make %{?_smp_mflags} → %make_build
- Static libraries are generally not packaged, remove it at the end of install:
rm -v %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/*.a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1947670
Patrik Polakovič ppolakov@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment|0 |updated
--- Comment #0 has been edited ---
Spec URL: https://gist.githubusercontent.com/ppolakov/b51d20a4ee53d42719bbb7e280dd9370... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/patrikp/Monocypher/fedora... Description:
Monocypher is an easy to use cryptographic library. It provides functions for authenticated encryption, hashing, password hashing and key derivation, key exchange, and public key signatures. It is:
- Small. Monocypher contains under 2000 lines of code, small enough to allow audits. The binaries can be under 50KB, small enough for many embedded targets. - Easy to deploy. Just add monocypher.c and monocypher.h to your project. They compile as C99 or C++ and are dedicated to the public domain (CC0-1.0, alternatively 2-clause BSD). - Portable. There are no dependencies, not even on libc. - Honest. The API is small, consistent, and cannot fail on correct input. - Direct. The abstractions are minimal. A developer with experience in applied cryptography can be productive in minutes. - Fast. The primitives are fast to begin with, and performance wasn't needlessly sacrificed. Monocypher holds up pretty well against Libsodium, despite being closer in size to TweetNaCl.
Hello. This is my first package and I would be very thankful if somebody could review it. I am also in need of a sponsor. I have used rpmlint on the SPEC file, the Binary RPM, and the SRPM -- I am getting no errors and no warnings. I am also including a link for a successful koji build. Disclaimer: I am merely the packager, not the upstream maintainer.
Fedora Account System Username: patrikp koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=65810208
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1947670
--- Comment #2 from Patrik Polakovič ppolakov@redhat.com --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #1)
Please use lowercase for monocypher
This needs to be arch specific (add isa):
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
make %{?_smp_mflags} → %make_build
Static libraries are generally not packaged, remove it at the end of
install:
rm -v %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/*.a
Fixed the blockers you pointed out, and also some that one other person pointed out on IRC. Updated my initial bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1947670
Nils Philippsen nphilipp@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |nphilipp@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |nphilipp@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1947670
--- Comment #3 from Nils Philippsen nphilipp@redhat.com --- Hi Patrik!
Here's my review, as discussed.
I guess the links in the original comment don't incorporate all changes Robert-André has requested yet. I have more to add myself ;), please put in links to updated spec files, srpms in comments (instead of changing the original comment) so it's easier to distinguish older and newer versions. Thanks!
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [*] = Comment
Issues: ======= - Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: monocypher-devel. Does not provide -static: monocypher-devel. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries
--> Robert-André mentioned that already, the static library files should go.
- The man pages need to go into the -devel subpackage.
===== 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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [*]: In EPEL, ldconfig needs to be called for the shared library to be usable right away. Let's talk about how to achieve this if you decide to do it. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [!]: Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present. --> Without good cause, we shouldn't package static libraries, so please remove them.
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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-]: 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. [!]: Development files must be in a -devel package --> Right now the man page files are in the main package, please move them into the devel subpackage (they're documenting the library calls). [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. [*]: NB: Three lines in the description end in white space, please remove it. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: 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. [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]: 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane. [?]: 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. [-]: 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. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM, but they only differ by the presence of a trailing newline at the end of the file. [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.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: monocypher-3.1.2-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm monocypher-devel-3.1.2-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm monocypher-debuginfo-3.1.2-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm monocypher-debugsource-3.1.2-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm monocypher-3.1.2-1.fc35.src.rpm monocypher-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
--> This would be fixed by moving the man pages into -devel.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: monocypher-debuginfo-3.1.2-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- monocypher-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1947670
Nils Philippsen nphilipp@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(ppolakov@redhat.c | |om)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1947670
Patrik Polakovič ppolakov@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(ppolakov@redhat.c | |om) |
--- Comment #4 from Patrik Polakovič ppolakov@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/patrikp/Monocypher/fedora... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/patrikp/Monocypher/fedora... koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=65910279 copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/patrikp/Monocypher/build/2131578/
Fixed the blockers: removed static libraries, moved man pages to -devel subpackage, removed whitespaces at the end of some lines in the description.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1947670
Nils Philippsen nphilipp@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Nils Philippsen nphilipp@redhat.com --- The changes look good, the package is APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1947670
--- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/monocypher
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com