https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953243 --- Comment #3 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- So... this mostly looks good packaging wise, I have some requests for changes (see issues and the [!] entries) *However* upstream bundles bson, which - is not strictly forbidden anymore (fedora-review is out of date) but should be documented in the spec: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Bundled_Software_policy/ - is already packaged in Fedora as libbson (source: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mongo-c-driver) - the license header for the included files are ASL 2.0 which is not GPLv2 compatible. The package in Fedora is even wilder: ASL 2.0 and ISC and MIT and zlib ISC, MIT and zlib are all GPLv2 compatible but unfortunately... not ASL 2.0. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) Note: duo_unix-devel : /usr/lib64/security/pam_duo.la See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries => the *.la file should be removed in %install compared to the template (rpmdev-newspec -t lib duo_unix) you want to do something like: ``` find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -name '*.la' -exec rm -f {} ';' ``` ===== 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]: 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version 2 [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "[generated file]", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention)", "FSF All Permissive License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "Expat License [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "Apache License 2.0", "ISC License", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "BSD 4-clause "Original" or "Old" License", "Expat License", "curl License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 129 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/1953243-duo_unix/licensecheck.txt => should be "GPLv2 with exceptions" per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing and the LICENSE file => unfortunately ... lib/bson.* is Apache 2.0 licensed, this is not GPLv2 compatible => many internal Duo files are "All rights reserved" and not GPLv2, though we can assume this is an oversight (but you should file an issue or PR fixing it) [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib64/security(pam) => pam_duo already pulls in pam, no need to own /usr/lib64/security [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: 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. [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). => prefer using %make_build and %make_install => %configure already passes --prefix, no need to redefine it [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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. unnecessary requirements: - Requires: openssl <-- openssl-libs already pulled in - Requires: pam <-- pam_duo already pulls in pam - Requires: %{name}-doc <-- documentation should be optional what might be missing is, I suspect, duo_unix should depend on pam_duo [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. [?]: 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]: 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 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 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]: 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: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in pam_duo [?]: 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. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. there's a tests directory, run the tests or comment why they cannot be run [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. => switch to using %make_install which overrides INSTALL=: ``` $ rpm -E '%make_install' /usr/bin/make install DESTDIR=/home/michel/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/%{NAME}-%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE}.x86_64 INSTALL="/usr/bin/install -p" ``` [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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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]: 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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: duo_unix-1.11.4-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm duo_unix-doc-1.11.4-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm pam_duo-1.11.4-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm duo_unix-devel-1.11.4-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm duo_unix-debuginfo-1.11.4-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm duo_unix-debugsource-1.11.4-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm duo_unix-1.11.4-1.fc35.src.rpm duo_unix.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US passcode -> pass code, pass-code, postcode duo_unix.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/sbin/login_duo duo_unix.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/duo/login_duo.conf 600 duo_unix.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary duo_unix_support.sh duo_unix-doc.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unix -> UNIX, Unix, uni duo_unix-doc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unix -> UNIX, Unix, uni pam_duo.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/duo/pam_duo.conf 600 duo_unix-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unix -> UNIX, Unix, uni duo_unix-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unix -> UNIX, Unix, uni duo_unix-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unix -> UNIX, Unix, uni duo_unix-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unix -> UNIX, Unix, uni duo_unix-debugsource.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unix -> UNIX, Unix, uni duo_unix-debugsource.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unix -> UNIX, Unix, uni duo_unix.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US passcode -> pass code, pass-code, postcode 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 11 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: duo_unix-debuginfo-1.11.4-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm duo_unix-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unix -> UNIX, Unix, uni duo_unix-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unix -> UNIX, Unix, uni 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- duo_unix-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unix -> UNIX, Unix, uni duo_unix-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unix -> UNIX, Unix, uni duo_unix-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unix -> UNIX, Unix, uni duo_unix-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unix -> UNIX, Unix, uni duo_unix-debugsource.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unix -> UNIX, Unix, uni duo_unix-debugsource.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unix -> UNIX, Unix, uni duo_unix-doc.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unix -> UNIX, Unix, uni duo_unix-doc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unix -> UNIX, Unix, uni pam_duo.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/duo/pam_duo.conf 600 duo_unix.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US passcode -> pass code, pass-code, postcode duo_unix.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/sbin/login_duo duo_unix.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/duo/login_duo.conf 600 duo_unix.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary duo_unix_support.sh 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 10 warnings. Unversioned so-files -------------------- pam_duo: /usr/lib64/security/pam_duo.so Source checksums ---------------- https://dl.duosecurity.com/duo_unix-1.11.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4fdb1a11473e167b7c062bd366807b9c436192a16b25031f2cb6e72f8da313c3 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4fdb1a11473e167b7c062bd366807b9c436192a16b25031f2cb6e72f8da313c3 Requires -------- duo_unix (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash config(duo_unix) duo_unix-doc libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1()(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0)(64bit) libssl.so.1.1()(64bit) libssl.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0)(64bit) openssl pam rtld(GNU_HASH) duo_unix-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): pam_duo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(pam_duo) duo_unix-doc libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1()(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0)(64bit) libpam.so.0()(64bit) libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_1.0)(64bit) libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_EXTENSION_1.0)(64bit) libssl.so.1.1()(64bit) libssl.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) duo_unix-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config duo_unix(x86-64) pam_duo(x86-64) pkgconfig(openssl) duo_unix-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): duo_unix-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- duo_unix: config(duo_unix) duo_unix duo_unix(x86-64) duo_unix-doc: duo_unix-doc duo_unix-doc(x86-64) pam_duo: config(pam_duo) pam_duo pam_duo(x86-64) duo_unix-devel: duo_unix-devel duo_unix-devel(x86-64) libtool(/usr/lib64/security/pam_duo.la) pkgconfig(libduo) duo_unix-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) duo_unix-debuginfo duo_unix-debuginfo(x86-64) duo_unix-debugsource: duo_unix-debugsource duo_unix-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1953243 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Haskell, R, Ocaml, PHP, SugarActivity, fonts, Java, Python, Perl 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
