https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133551 --- Comment #45 from Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> --- > positives) for points 4, 8, and 9 before I approve the package. > The others can be fixed post-approval / pre-import. > > ====================================================================== > > 1. Unowned directories: > All fixed > ====================================================================== > > 2. No debuginfo subpackages / unstripped binaries: > > Removing "%global debug_package %nil" should resolve this. Fixed. > ====================================================================== > > 3. Source0 URL invalid. Use > "%{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-rs-%{version}.tar.gz" instead. Fixed > ====================================================================== > > 4. Unversioned cross-subpackage dependencies They are actually independent, for the fdo-admin-cli which is the only one with the deps it likely makes sense to enforce this so I've added it. > ====================================================================== > > 5. Latest version is 0.4.10, packaged version is 0.4.9. This can be updated > at a later point. This is due to some deps awaiting bump in Fedora, the upstream is only minor updates so it's not a priority and can come when those deps happen. > ====================================================================== > > 6. The package contains unit tests, but they are not run. Not sure if they > can work in containerized environment, but it would be good to check whether > adding > > %if %{with check} > %check > %cargo_test > %endif > > After the %install scriptlet would work or not. If the tests cannot be run, > then that's fine, but it would be good to have a comment about that in the > spec file. I think we'd need to be able to run up services, I'll work with the team on this. I've added it for completeness but they're not enabled. > ====================================================================== > > 7. Please use %global dracutlibdir %{_prefix}/lib/dracut" instead of > "%define dracutlibdir %{_prefix}/lib/dracut". Updated. > ====================================================================== > > 8. rpmlint complains about crypto policy non-compliance in multiple binaries: > > fdo-admin-cli.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl > /usr/bin/fdo-admin-tool SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list > fdo-client.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl > /usr/libexec/fdo/fdo-client-linuxapp SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list > fdo-init.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl > /usr/libexec/fdo/fdo-manufacturing-client SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list > fdo-owner-onboarding-server.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl > /usr/libexec/fdo/fdo-owner-onboarding-server SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list > > Not sure if this is a problem that needs to be investigated. I can add it as an internal option but the protocol is extremely specific on it's crypto, we've had to get openssl updates upstream to deal with some of this in the past. I would like this to not block the review, it has already been going on long enough. > ====================================================================== > > 9. Unused library dependencies? > > > Not sure what these are about. A few of the FDO components use the TPM2 for storing/retrieving things, maybe the rust linker is linking this into all the compoents even if individual components (eg the services) don't actually use the TPM2 side of things. > ====================================================================== > > Full fedora-review checklist included below. > > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > > ===== MUST items ===== > > 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. > [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: > /usr/lib/dracut/modules.d/52fdo, /usr/libexec/fdo, > /usr/lib/dracut/modules.d, /usr/share/doc/fdo, /usr/lib/dracut > [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. > [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. > [!]: 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. > [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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > [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]: 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]: 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]: 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 fdo-owner-onboarding-server, fdo- > rendezvous-server, fdo-manufacturing-server, fdo-client, fdo-admin-cli > [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. > [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local > > ===== SHOULD items ===== > > Generic: > [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag > [-]: 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. > [?]: Package functions as described. > [!]: 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. > [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream > publishes signatures. > [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported > architectures. > [!]: %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. > [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. > > ===== EXTRA items ===== > > Generic: > [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > [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. I think those are all fixed now. spec: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/fido-device-onboard.spec srpm: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/fido-device-onboard-0.4.9-5.fc38.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=102142841 -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133551 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202133551%23c45 _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
