https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1611829 Marc-Andre Lureau <marcandre.lureau@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whiteboard| |NotReady --- Comment #9 from Marc-Andre Lureau <marcandre.lureau@xxxxxxxxxx> --- I ran fedora-review for you :) : Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Please follow the common section order: https://rpm-packaging-guide.github.io/#hello-world In particular %files is before %changelog - For initial Fedora introduction, I would recommend to drop all the conditionals, and the support for building on older fedora or rhel (they can be added back later on, but they ease the initial review and avoid the cruft). - test_tpm2_save_load_encrypted_state fails (wasn't this supposed to be fixed with #1612803 ?) - These BR are not needed: coreutils sed bash - /sbin/ldconfig not called in swtpm-libs Tbh, I think having a shared library for swtpm isn't really worth it. It may create problems, not really solve any. I would rather link the common objects to the final binaries. Otherwise, I think the private libraries should rather be placed under ${_libdir}/%{name}, to avoid having the library in default link path. - fedora-review doesn't like swtpm-debugsource headers, it may be a fedora-review bug? - see other issues listed below, in particular rpmlint ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. 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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. The package LICENSE file should be installed with %license with swtpm [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/swtpm [?]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. I think I hit a fedora-review bug here... [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog rpmlint error [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: Development files must be in a -devel package Only /usr/include/swtpm/tpm_ioctl.h is provided, which doesn't provide API to /usr/lib64/libswtpm_libtpms.so. If /usr/lib64/libswtpm_libtpms.so is a private shared library, I don't know what's the packaging rule. [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. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. Sometime you use swtpm, sometime %{name} [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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 use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [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: [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in swtpm- libs , swtpm-selinux , swtpm-devel , swtpm-tools , swtpm-debuginfo , swtpm-debugsource [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Does not yet pass on f28, due to openssl bug [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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: swtpm-0.1.0-1.dev2.fc30.x86_64.rpm swtpm-libs-0.1.0-1.dev2.fc30.x86_64.rpm swtpm-selinux-0.1.0-1.dev2.fc30.noarch.rpm swtpm-devel-0.1.0-1.dev2.fc30.x86_64.rpm swtpm-tools-0.1.0-1.dev2.fc30.x86_64.rpm swtpm-debuginfo-0.1.0-1.dev2.fc30.x86_64.rpm swtpm-debugsource-0.1.0-1.dev2.fc30.x86_64.rpm swtpm-0.1.0-1.dev2.fc30.src.rpm swtpm.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag swtpm.x86_64: W: no-url-tag swtpm-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libtpms -> libations swtpm-libs.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag swtpm-libs.x86_64: W: no-url-tag swtpm-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation swtpm-selinux.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libselinux-utils swtpm-selinux.noarch: E: no-changelogname-tag swtpm-selinux.noarch: W: no-url-tag swtpm-selinux.noarch: W: no-documentation swtpm-selinux.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%posttrans rm swtpm-devel.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag swtpm-devel.x86_64: W: no-url-tag swtpm-tools.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag swtpm-tools.x86_64: W: no-url-tag swtpm-debuginfo.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag swtpm-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-url-tag swtpm-debugsource.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag swtpm-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-url-tag swtpm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libtpms -> libations swtpm.src: E: no-changelogname-tag swtpm.src: W: no-url-tag swtpm.src:177: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 6, tab: line 177) swtpm.src: E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog: Mon Sep 17 2010 Stefan Berger - 0.1.0-0.20180917gitfd755d731e 8 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 10 errors, 14 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: swtpm-debuginfo-0.1.0-1.dev2.fc30.x86_64.rpm swtpm-libs-debuginfo-0.1.0-1.dev2.fc30.x86_64.rpm swtpm-tools-debuginfo-0.1.0-1.dev2.fc30.x86_64.rpm swtpm-debuginfo.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag swtpm-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-url-tag swtpm-libs-debuginfo.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag swtpm-libs-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-url-tag swtpm-tools-debuginfo.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag swtpm-tools-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-url-tag 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory swtpm-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libtpms -> libations swtpm-libs.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag swtpm-libs.x86_64: W: no-url-tag swtpm-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation swtpm-devel.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag swtpm-devel.x86_64: W: no-url-tag swtpm-tools-debuginfo.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag swtpm-tools-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-url-tag swtpm-selinux.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libselinux-utils swtpm-selinux.noarch: E: no-changelogname-tag swtpm-selinux.noarch: W: no-url-tag swtpm-selinux.noarch: W: no-documentation swtpm-selinux.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%posttrans rm swtpm-debuginfo.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag swtpm-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-url-tag swtpm-tools.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag swtpm-tools.x86_64: W: no-url-tag swtpm-libs-debuginfo.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag swtpm-libs-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-url-tag swtpm.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag swtpm.x86_64: W: no-url-tag swtpm-debugsource.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag swtpm-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-url-tag 9 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 10 errors, 13 warnings. Requires -------- swtpm-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1()(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0)(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libtpms.so.0()(64bit) libtpms.so.0(LIBTPMS_0.5.1)(64bit) libtpms.so.0(LIBTPMS_0.6.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) swtpm-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libswtpm_libtpms.so.0()(64bit) swtpm(x86-64) swtpm-selinux (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libselinux-utils policycoreutils policycoreutils-python-utils selinux-policy selinux-policy-base swtpm-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): swtpm-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash bash config(swtpm-tools) expect fuse gnutls-utils libc.so.6()(64bit) libgnutls.so.30()(64bit) libgnutls.so.30(GNUTLS_3_4)(64bit) libtasn1.so.6()(64bit) libtasn1.so.6(LIBTASN1_0_3)(64bit) net-tools rtld(GNU_HASH) swtpm tpm-tools trousers swtpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh fuse kernel-modules-extra libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libswtpm_libtpms.so.0()(64bit) libtpms libtpms.so.0()(64bit) libtpms.so.0(LIBTPMS_0.5.1)(64bit) libtpms.so.0(LIBTPMS_0.6.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) swtpm-selinux swtpm-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- swtpm-libs: libswtpm_libtpms.so.0()(64bit) swtpm-libs swtpm-libs(x86-64) swtpm-devel: swtpm-devel swtpm-devel(x86-64) swtpm-selinux: swtpm-selinux swtpm-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) swtpm-debuginfo swtpm-debuginfo(x86-64) swtpm-tools: config(swtpm-tools) swtpm-tools swtpm-tools(x86-64) swtpm: swtpm swtpm(x86-64) swtpm-debugsource: swtpm-debugsource swtpm-debugsource(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- Using local file /home/elmarco/pkg/swtpm/v0.1.0.tar.gz as upstream file:///home/elmarco/pkg/swtpm/v0.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6e3b869633a532952f0ff482439c6ef1741a530be3897b7c4e3d977539b557d0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6e3b869633a532952f0ff482439c6ef1741a530be3897b7c4e3d977539b557d0 AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: swtpm-0.1.0/configure.ac:43 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --rpm-spec -n /home/elmarco/rpmbuild/SRPMS/swtpm-0.1.0-1.dev2.fc28.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
