https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1792741 Christian Dersch <lupinix.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Christian Dersch <lupinix.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> --- Approved! The package differs from the EL 8 package only where required and keeps close to the upstream package otherwise. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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", "OpenSSL License", "OpenSSL License BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "Apache License (v2.0)", "OpenSSL License Public domain BSD (unspecified)", "OpenSSL License Apache License (v2.0)", "OpenSSL License BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "OpenSSL License BSD (unspecified)", "OpenSSL License Mozilla Public License (v1.1)", "Artistic License". 1421 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/lupinix/1792741-openssl11/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/openssl11 [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/openssl11 [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /etc/pki/tls(ca-certificates, openssl-libs), /etc/pki/tls/certs(ca-certificates, openssl-libs), /etc/pki/tls/misc(openssl-libs), /etc/pki/tls/private(openssl-libs) [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]: 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. Note: Documentation size is 655360 bytes in 8 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 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]: 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]: 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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: openssl11-static. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in openssl11-libs , openssl11-devel , openssl11-static [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: 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. [-]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define soversion 1.1, %define multilib_arches %{ix86} ia64 %{mips} ppc ppc64 s390 s390x sparcv9 sparc64 x86_64, %define __spec_install_post %{?__debug_package:%{__debug_install_post}} %{__arch_install_post} %{__os_install_post} crypto/fips/fips_standalone_hmac $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/libcrypto.so.%{version} >$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/.libcrypto.so.%{version}.hmac ln -sf .libcrypto.so.%{version}.hmac $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/.libcrypto.so.%{soversion}.hmac crypto/fips/fips_standalone_hmac $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/libssl.so.%{version} >$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/.libssl.so.%{version}.hmac ln -sf .libssl.so.%{version}.hmac $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/.libssl.so.%{soversion}.hmac %{nil}, %define __provides_exclude_from %{_libdir}/openssl [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 4853760 bytes in /usr/share [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: openssl11-1.1.1c-1.el7.x86_64.rpm openssl11-libs-1.1.1c-1.el7.x86_64.rpm openssl11-devel-1.1.1c-1.el7.x86_64.rpm openssl11-static-1.1.1c-1.el7.x86_64.rpm openssl11-debuginfo-1.1.1c-1.el7.x86_64.rpm openssl11-1.1.1c-1.el7.src.rpm openssl11.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.1.1c-1 ['1:1.1.1c-1.el7', '1:1.1.1c-1'] openssl11.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/bin/openssl11 SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list openssl11.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary make-dummy-cert openssl11.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary renew-dummy-cert openssl11-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation openssl11-libs.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib64/.libcrypto.so.1.1.1c.hmac openssl11-libs.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib64/.libcrypto.so.1.1.hmac openssl11-libs.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib64/.libssl.so.1.1.1c.hmac openssl11-libs.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib64/.libssl.so.1.1.hmac openssl11-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation openssl11.src: W: strange-permission hobble-openssl 755 openssl11.src: W: strange-permission make-dummy-cert 755 openssl11.src: W: strange-permission renew-dummy-cert 755 openssl11.src:181: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 181) openssl11.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch41: openssl-1.1.1-system-cipherlist.patch openssl11.src: W: invalid-url Source0: openssl-1.1.1c-hobbled.tar.xz 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 16 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: openssl11-debuginfo-1.1.1c-1.el7.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- openssl11-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.openssl.org/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> openssl11-debuginfo.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib openssl11-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.openssl.org/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> openssl11-static.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.openssl.org/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> openssl11-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation openssl11.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.1.1c-1 ['1:1.1.1c-1.el7', '1:1.1.1c-1'] openssl11.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.openssl.org/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> openssl11.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary make-dummy-cert openssl11.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary renew-dummy-cert openssl11-libs.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.openssl.org/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> openssl11-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation openssl11-libs.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib64/.libcrypto.so.1.1.hmac openssl11-libs.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib64/.libssl.so.1.1.1c.hmac openssl11-libs.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib64/.libssl.so.1.1.hmac openssl11-libs.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib64/.libcrypto.so.1.1.1c.hmac 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 15 warnings. Unversioned so-files -------------------- openssl11-libs: /usr/lib64/engines-1.1/afalg.so openssl11-libs: /usr/lib64/engines-1.1/capi.so openssl11-libs: /usr/lib64/engines-1.1/padlock.so Requires -------- openssl11 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash /bin/sh coreutils libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1()(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0)(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_1)(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libssl.so.1.1()(64bit) libssl.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0)(64bit) libssl.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_1)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) openssl11-libs(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH) openssl11-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig ca-certificates config(openssl11-libs) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1()(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0)(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0d)(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0f)(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0i)(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_1)(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) openssl11-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config krb5-devel(x86-64) libcrypto.so.1.1()(64bit) libssl.so.1.1()(64bit) openssl11-libs(x86-64) pkgconfig pkgconfig(libcrypto11) pkgconfig(libssl11) zlib-devel(x86-64) openssl11-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): openssl11-devel(x86-64) openssl11-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- openssl11: openssl11 openssl11(x86-64) openssl11-libs: config(openssl11-libs) libcrypto.so.1.1()(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0)(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0a)(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0c)(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0d)(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0f)(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0g)(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0h)(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0i)(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0j)(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_1)(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_1b)(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_1c)(64bit) libssl.so.1.1()(64bit) libssl.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0)(64bit) libssl.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0d)(64bit) libssl.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_1)(64bit) libssl.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_1a)(64bit) openssl11-libs openssl11-libs(x86-64) openssl11-devel: openssl11-devel openssl11-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libcrypto11) pkgconfig(libssl11) pkgconfig(openssl11) openssl11-static: openssl11-static openssl11-static(x86-64) openssl11-debuginfo: openssl11-debuginfo openssl11-debuginfo(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -m epel-7-x86_64 -b 1792741 -o --yum Buildroot used: epel-7-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, R, Perl, Java, SugarActivity, Haskell, Python, Ocaml, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
