[Bug 711895] Review Request: softhsm - Software version of a PKCS#11 Hardware Security Module
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Oct 15 15:18:50 UTC 2011
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711895
--- Comment #2 from Wes Hardaker <wjhns174 at hardakers.net> 2011-10-15 11:18:49 EDT ---
Close... A few minor things to clean up.
* Notes:
-devel description:
Summary: Development package that (does not?) includes header files
Description: The devel package contains the libsofthsm library and (no?)
include files
+ Pick one? (hint, it does)
* MUSTs
- [X] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the
build produces. The output should be posted in the review.
- spec file:
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
- src rpm:
softhsm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptographic ->
cryptography, cryptographer, crystallographic
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
- binary RPM:
0-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm
/home/hardaker/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/softhsm-1.3.0-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm
softhsm-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libsofthsm
-> softhearted
softhsm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptographic ->
cryptography, cryptographer, crystallographic
softhsm.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/softhsm
softhsm.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/softhsm-keyconv
softhsm.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/softhsm/libsofthsm.so
softhsm.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/softhsm 0700L
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings.
- Reviewer note: the /var/softhsm directory will contain keys
and locking it down to root-readable makes sense.
- [X] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package
Naming Guidelines .
- [X] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name},
in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
- [X] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
- [X] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved
license and meet the Licensing Guidelines .
- [X] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match
the actual license.
- Note: the only copyright statements are in the source code, but
are BSD licenses. Work with the upstream to add a top-level file?
- [X] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.
- [X] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
- [X] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
- [X] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the
upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use
md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this
package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with
this.
- [X] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into
binary rpms on at least one primary architecture.
- [X] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or
work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed
in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in
ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the
reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that
architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to
the corresponding ExcludeArch line.
- [X] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires,
except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the
Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is
optional. Apply common sense.
- tested via mock
- [X] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done
by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is
strictly forbidden.
- [ ] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores
shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic
linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
- Needs to be added
- [X] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
- [X] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the
packager must state this fact in the request for review, along
with the rationalization for relocation of that specific
package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a
blocker.
- [X] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If
it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should
require a package which does create that directory.
- [X] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in
the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts
in specific situations)
- [X] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables
should be set with executable permissions, for example.
- [X] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
- [X] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
- [X] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc
subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's
best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to
either size or quantity).
- [X] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not
affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in
%doc, the program must run properly if it is not present.
- [X] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
- [ ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
- Err... they're in -devel. That's a new requirement to me as
well. It's certainly not consistently enforced yet.
- [X] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix
(e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without
suffix) must go in a -devel package.
- [X] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must
require the base package using a fully versioned dependency:
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
- [X] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives,
these must be removed in the spec if they are built.
- [X] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a
%{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed
with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel
that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file,
you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
- [X] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned
by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first
package to be installed should own the files or directories that
other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no
package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the
files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If
you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory
that another package owns, then please present that at package
review time.
- [X] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
* SHOULDs
- [X] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package
spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English
languages, if available.
- Note: not available
- [X] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in
mock.
- [X] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms
on all supported architectures.
- [X] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as
described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for
example.
- Didn't do a huge amount, but started to tinker.
- [X] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be
sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to
determine sanity.
- [X] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require
the base package using a fully versioned dependency.
- [X] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their
usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should
be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main
pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime,
e.g. gcc or gdb.
- [X] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc,
/bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package
which provides the file instead of the file itself.
- [X] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for
binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them
where they make sense.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
More information about the package-review
mailing list