https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2047943 Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #4 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- Welcome to Fedora, Chris. Here is my review of this package. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= I realize that you inherited many of these issues from the Fedora openssh spec file, but I'm reporting them anyway as a conscientious reviewer. :-) First the automatically generated issues: - systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in hpnssh-server See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets - systemd_user_post is invoked in %post and systemd_user_preun in %preun for Systemd user units service files. Note: Systemd user unit service file(s) in hpnssh-clients See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Scriptlets/#_user_units And now my comments: - There is already a package named pam_ssh_agent_auth. You cannot reuse this name. Either rename it or, if it does not need to be different from the openssh version, suppress it. If you rename the package, we also have to be sure the two packages can be installed in parallel. - There is already a directory named /usr/libexec/openssh, owned by the openssh package. Is it write to add the hpnssh files there, or should it use /usr/libexec/hpnssh? - Dependencies between the main package and subpackages should include %{?_isa} when the packages are both archful. In the clients subpackage, for example, the dependency on the main package should look like this: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_requiring_base_package - Are Source0 and Source1 downloadable from somewhere? If so, please change both of those to full URLs. - Since the main package has License: BSD, there is no point repeating that in the pam_ssh_agent_auth subpackage. - Speaking of the license, there are other licenses besides BSD at play here: Beerware: md5crypt.{c,h} Public domain: rijndael.{c,h} ISC: addr.{c,h}, addrmatch.c, auth-options.{c,h}, bitmatp.{c,h}, etc. - There is a macro for doing GPG verification. The first line in %prep should be: %{gpgverify} --keyring='%{SOURCE3}' --signature='%{SOURCE1}' --data='%{SOURCE0}' https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_verifying_signatures - The openssh spec file has switched from gtk2 to gtk3. Should that change be made to hpnssh as well? - The comment on line 468 of the spec file is a bit puzzling. RPM does handle nested %if statements. - The first line of %install should be removed. See the 3rd bullet here: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections - Nearly all of the %attr directives in the %files are unnecessary. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_permissions - The mechanisms used to create users and groups have changed. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/UsersAndGroups/ - The most recent changelog entry has an incorrect version number. Instead of 8.8p1-2, it should be 8.8p1_hpn16v1-2. - See the rpmlint output below for a few other minor issues. ===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "ISC License", "BSD 2-Clause License", "ISC License BSD 2-Clause License", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "X11 License [generated file]", "*No copyright* Beerware License", "*No copyright* Public domain", "BSD 3-Clause License BSD 2-Clause License", "BSD 3-Clause License", "BSD 4-Clause License", "BSD 2-clause NetBSD License BSD 2-Clause License", "ISC License BSD 3-Clause License", "ISC License BSD 2-clause NetBSD License BSD 2-Clause License", "SSLeay", "MIT License", "OpenSSL License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "BSD 2-Clause with views sentence", "Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer - sell variant [generated file]", "curl License", "BSD 2-Clause with views sentence GNU General Public License". 577 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jamesjer/2/review-hpnssh/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/systemd/user, /usr/lib/systemd, /usr/lib64/security, /etc/profile.d, /etc/pam.d [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/libexec/openssh(openssh, x11-ssh-askpass) [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: 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. [!]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 143360 bytes in 19 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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. Note: Multiple Release: tags found [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]: 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]: 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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in hpnssh- clients , hpnssh-server , hpnssh-keycat , hpnssh-askpass , pam_ssh_agent_auth [?]: 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. [!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [x]: 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. [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]: 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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- ================================================ rpmlint session starts ================================================ rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 7 hpnssh.x86_64: E: setgid-binary /usr/libexec/openssh/hpnssh-keysign ssh_keys 2555 pam_ssh_agent_auth.x86_64: E: pam-unauthorized-module pam_ssh_agent_auth.so hpnssh.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /usr/libexec/openssh/hpnssh-keysign ssh_keys hpnssh.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/libexec/openssh/hpnssh-keysign 2555 hpnssh.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/libexec/openssh/hpnssh-keysign 2555 hpnssh-server.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/share/empty.hpnsshd 711 hpnssh-server.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/hpnssh/sshd_config 600 hpnssh-server.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/hpnssh/sshd_config.d/50-redhat.conf 600 hpnssh-server.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/sysconfig/hpnsshd 640 hpnssh-askpass.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/gnome-hpnssh-askpass.csh hpnssh-askpass.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/gnome-hpnssh-askpass.sh hpnssh-askpass.x86_64: W: no-documentation hpnssh.spec:584: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 584, tab: line 416) hpnssh.spec: W: invalid-url Source1: hpnssh-8.8p1_hpn16v1.tar.gz.asc hpnssh.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: hpnssh-8.8p1_hpn16v1.tar.gz hpnssh.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 8.8p1-2 ['8.8p1_hpn16v1-2.fc36', '8.8p1_hpn16v1-2'] hpnssh-server.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rm hpnssh-server.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/sbin/hpnsshd ================ 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 10 warnings, 8 badness; has taken 19.3 s ================ Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ================================================ rpmlint session starts ================================================ rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 6 hpnssh.x86_64: E: setgid-binary /usr/libexec/openssh/hpnssh-keysign ssh_keys 2555 pam_ssh_agent_auth.x86_64: E: pam-unauthorized-module pam_ssh_agent_auth.so hpnssh.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /usr/libexec/openssh/hpnssh-keysign ssh_keys hpnssh.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/libexec/openssh/hpnssh-keysign 2555 hpnssh.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/libexec/openssh/hpnssh-keysign 2555 hpnssh-server.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/share/empty.hpnsshd 711 hpnssh-server.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/hpnssh/sshd_config 600 hpnssh-server.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/hpnssh/sshd_config.d/50-redhat.conf 600 hpnssh-server.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/sysconfig/hpnsshd 640 hpnssh-askpass.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/gnome-hpnssh-askpass.csh hpnssh-askpass.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/gnome-hpnssh-askpass.sh hpnssh-askpass.x86_64: W: no-documentation hpnssh.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 8.8p1-2 ['8.8p1_hpn16v1-2.fc36', '8.8p1_hpn16v1-2'] hpnssh-server.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rm hpnssh-server.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/sbin/hpnsshd ================= 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 7 warnings, 8 badness; has taken 0.8 s ================= Unversioned so-files -------------------- pam_ssh_agent_auth: /usr/lib64/security/pam_ssh_agent_auth.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/jbeverly/pam_ssh_agent_auth/archive/pam_ssh_agent_auth-0.10.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9d440de6627940c09eadc342cc7d8bc9823654fd1a2be11c4f5820dd073054e0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9d440de6627940c09eadc342cc7d8bc9823654fd1a2be11c4f5820dd073054e0 Requires -------- hpnssh (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /sbin/nologin audit-libs config(hpnssh) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libselinux libselinux.so.1()(64bit) libselinux.so.1(LIBSELINUX_1.0)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) hpnssh-clients (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/sh config(hpnssh-clients) crypto-policies hpnssh libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libedit.so.0()(64bit) libfido2.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgssapi_krb5.so.2()(64bit) libgssapi_krb5.so.2(gssapi_krb5_2_MIT)(64bit) libselinux.so.1()(64bit) libselinux.so.1(LIBSELINUX_1.0)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) hpnssh-server (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/bash /usr/sbin/useradd config(hpnssh-server) crypto-policies hpnssh libaudit.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcom_err.so.2()(64bit) libcrypt.so.2()(64bit) libcrypt.so.2(XCRYPT_2.0)(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgssapi_krb5.so.2()(64bit) libgssapi_krb5.so.2(gssapi_krb5_2_MIT)(64bit) libkrb5.so.3()(64bit) libkrb5.so.3(krb5_3_MIT)(64bit) libpam.so.0()(64bit) libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_1.0)(64bit) libselinux.so.1()(64bit) libselinux.so.1(LIBSELINUX_1.0)(64bit) libsystemd.so.0()(64bit) libsystemd.so.0(LIBSYSTEMD_209)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) pam rtld(GNU_HASH) systemd hpnssh-keycat (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(hpnssh-keycat) hpnssh libc.so.6()(64bit) libpam.so.0()(64bit) libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_1.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) hpnssh-askpass (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): hpnssh libX11.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) pam_ssh_agent_auth (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libpam.so.0()(64bit) libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_1.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) hpnssh-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): hpnssh-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- hpnssh: config(hpnssh) hpnssh hpnssh(x86-64) hpnssh-clients: config(hpnssh-clients) hpnssh-clients hpnssh-clients(x86-64) hpnssh-server: config(hpnssh-server) hpnssh-server hpnssh-server(x86-64) hpnssh-keycat: config(hpnssh-keycat) hpnssh-keycat hpnssh-keycat(x86-64) hpnssh-askpass: hpnssh-askpass hpnssh-askpass(x86-64) pam_ssh_agent_auth: pam_ssh_agent_auth pam_ssh_agent_auth(x86-64) hpnssh-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) hpnssh-debuginfo hpnssh-debuginfo(x86-64) hpnssh-debugsource: hpnssh-debugsource hpnssh-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n hpnssh -m fedora-36-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-36-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Python, Ruby, Perl, R, Java, SugarActivity, Ocaml, PHP, fonts, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2047943 _______________________________________________ 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
