https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310092 --- Comment #22 from Ralf Senderek <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #21) > Package Review > > Issues: > ======= > - gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package > contains icons. > Note: icons in cryptobone > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache I have included the necessary update scripts in %post %postun and %posttrans sections in the new (release 7) spec file > > - Permissions on files are set properly. > Note: See rpmlint output > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions > This is a special case I think we're good here. OK. > > - 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. > Note: License file COPYING is marked as %doc instead of %license > See: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text > This is due to a Fedora specific guideline to put licenses in > /usr/share/license > instead of /usr/share/doc to reduce install size for space limited targets > like arm. > Might be best to remove the license stuff from your makefile and use > relative paths > instead. To be honest, I don't know how to handle this. The COPYING file is already marked as %license. Would it be necessary to move them to /usr/share/license and leave the mark as %license? What else should be changed? > > - cryptobone.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid > /usr/lib/cryptobone/libcl.so.3.4.3 > $ rpmlint -I missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid > missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid: > This executable is calling setuid and setgid without setgroups or > initgroups. > There is a high probability this means it didn't relinquish all groups, and > this would be a potential security issue to be fixed. Seek POS36-C on the > web > for details about the problem. For weeks I have been trying to find out what rpmlint thinks the problem may be here, and I have found nothing substantial on the web since that could shed some light on what's required. I suppose this is a false-positive. I'm inclined to ignore this error. > > - Some files are licensed MIT: > MIT/X11 (BSD like) > ------------------ > cryptobone-1.0.1/src/cryptoboned/b64.c > cryptobone-1.0.1/src/cryptoboned/b64.h > cryptobone-1.0.1/src/openpgp/b64.c > cryptobone-1.0.1/src/openpgp/b64.h > > I think just updating your license tag to "BSD and MIT" should be good > enough here. I've done that. > ===== MUST items ===== > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (2 clause)", "GPL (v3 or later)", > "Unknown or generated", "BSD (4 clause)". 12 files have unknown > license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/build/fedora- > review/1310092-cryptobone/licensecheck.txt Should be good with the new updated license tag. > [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc/cryptobone I've added %dir %{_docdir}/cryptobone > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/init.d, > /usr/share/icons/default, /usr/share/doc/cryptobone\ > Do we need the init.d file since we have a systemd service file? Well yes, we need /etc/init.d so I added %dir /etc/init.d (see comments in the spec file (release 7)) > I think we can ignore all but /usr/share/doc/cryptobone which can be added > as: > %dir %{_docdir}/cryptobone in %files done. This is the updated (release 7) spec file. No changes to the source. https://crypto-bone.com/fedora/cryptobone.spec Please let me know if I have to change anything else. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review