https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2255917 --- Comment #3 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated The package is based on the output of rust2rpm, simplifying the review. The following differences are noted: - The tests are disabled due to missing dependencies. While rust-ntest was packaged since the review was posted, there is still no rust-interprocess. Since this package is security-relevant, it would be especially nice to enable the tests at some point. - Patches make two changes that are reasonable to do downstream-only: * drop features for unavailable crypto backends * build with OpenSSL crypto backend - A patch ports from the home-dir crate to shellexpand, calling the former obsolete. This makes sense to do upstream, and in fact I found that you offered it there: # https://gitlab.com/sequoia-pgp/sequoia-chameleon-gnupg/-/merge_requests/111 # https://gitlab.com/sequoia-pgp/sequoia-chameleon-gnupg/-/commit/03f23a7f960f1cc0ff74b499c0c2d1ce657e9a52 Please add a spec-file comment to document the patch upstream status. - The license expression was correctly constructed based on %cargo_license_summary. ===== Issues ===== - The upstream status of the patch to migrate from home-dir to shellexpand should be documented. Please add a link to the merge request and/or commit: # https://gitlab.com/sequoia-pgp/sequoia-chameleon-gnupg/-/merge_requests/111 # https://gitlab.com/sequoia-pgp/sequoia-chameleon-gnupg/-/commit/03f23a7f960f1cc0ff74b499c0c2d1ce657e9a52 - The file src/err-codes.h.in is taken from libgpg-error and retains the LGPL-2.1-or-later license of that package, but the Cargo.toml file only mentions the “overall” license of GPL-3.0-or-later. At minimum, it looks like the base package License needs to change from License: GPL-3.0-or-later to License: GPL-3.0-or-later AND LGPL-2.1-or-later based on current Fedora license guidelines that prohibit using an “effective license.” Does that mean you should patch Cargo.toml and/or ask upstream to change it? I don’t know; you’re the Rust expert here. ;-) There *is* a LGPL-2.1-or-later term in the binary RPM’s License, but that is by chance, from buffered-reader and several sequioa-* crates. The bundling should also be indicated, something like: # A single header describing error codes, err-codes.h.in, is copied from # libgpg-error. Since this is not a public header file, unbundling is not # possible. It is not clear exactly which version of libgpg-error this file # was copied from. Provides: bundled(libgpg-error) - Rpmlint reports: sequoia-chameleon-gnupg.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/bin/gpg-sq SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/CryptoPolicies/#_cc_applications I know that calling SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list() is OK as long as the string is "PROFILE=SYSTEM". That function isn’t mentioned in the source code, so the call is happening in a dependency (so if there isa bug, it isn’t in this package). In dependency crate source openssl-0.10.62/src/ssl/connector.rs, I see: impl SslConnector { /// Creates a new builder for TLS connections. /// /// The default configuration is subject to change, and is currently derived from Python. pub fn builder(method: SslMethod) -> Result<SslConnectorBuilder, ErrorStack> { let mut ctx = ctx(method)?; ctx.set_default_verify_paths()?; ctx.set_cipher_list( "DEFAULT:!aNULL:!eNULL:!MD5:!3DES:!DES:!RC4:!IDEA:!SEED:!aDSS:!SRP:!PSK", )?; setup_verify(&mut ctx); Ok(SslConnectorBuilder(ctx)) } […] } There are other hard-coded cipher lists in SslAcceptor, but they are in functions explicitly corresponding to configurations recommended by Mozilla (mozilla_intermediate_v5, mozilla_intermediate, mozilla_modern), which seems like is should probably be acceptable. It seems likely that the builder function above is called, but I’m not sure how to prove that or otherwise further analyze this. I did find DEFAULT:!aNULL:!eNULL:!MD5:!3DES:!DES:!RC4:!IDEA:!SEED:!aDSS:!SRP:!PSK in the output of “strings gpg-sv”, which supports the above theory. Anyway, *if* there is a failure to respect the system crypto policy it’s probably not due to anything in this package’s, so I am not sure whether it should block this review, but it does appear that this needs investigating. ===== Notes ===== - Rpmlint reports: sequoia-chameleon-gnupg.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gpg-sq sequoia-chameleon-gnupg.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gpgv-sq Man pages are always desired, https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages, but the help2man output for these commands is not great, so there isn’t much to be done here unless we want to maintain them by hand. ===== 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. [!]: 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 3", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later". 212 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/Downloads/review/2255917-rust- sequoia-chameleon-gnupg/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. $ rpm -qL -p results/sequoia-chameleon-gnupg-0.4.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm /usr/share/licenses/sequoia-chameleon-gnupg/LICENSE.dependencies /usr/share/licenses/sequoia-chameleon-gnupg/LICENSE.txt [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. No FPC exception is required, as we have https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling now, but the bundling of src/err-codes.h.in from libgpg-error should be indicated and its license should appear in the overall License expression. [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 21096 bytes in 2 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: File names are valid UTF-8. [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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in sequoia- chameleon-gnupg [?]: Package functions as described. The commands print their help messages. The tests are not executed, and I don’t have a good interactive test in mind. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. The upstream status of the patch to migrate from home-dir to shellexpand should be documented. Please add a link to the merge request and/or commit. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [j]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=111436943 [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Tests are omitted due to missing interprocess crate dependency. [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 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: sequoia-chameleon-gnupg-0.4.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm rust-sequoia-chameleon-gnupg-debugsource-0.4.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm rust-sequoia-chameleon-gnupg-0.4.0-1.fc40.src.rpm =============================================== rpmlint session starts =============================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpypznas1r')] checks: 31, packages: 3 sequoia-chameleon-gnupg.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gpg-sq sequoia-chameleon-gnupg.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gpgv-sq sequoia-chameleon-gnupg.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/bin/gpg-sq SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list ================ 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s ================ Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 2 sequoia-chameleon-gnupg.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/gpg-sq /lib64/libsqlite3.so.0 sequoia-chameleon-gnupg.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/gpgv-sq /lib64/libsqlite3.so.0 sequoia-chameleon-gnupg.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('reimplementation', 'Summary(en_US) reimplementation -> re implementation, re-implementation, implementation') sequoia-chameleon-gnupg.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('reimplementation', '%description -l en_US reimplementation -> re implementation, re-implementation, implementation') sequoia-chameleon-gnupg.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gpg-sq sequoia-chameleon-gnupg.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gpgv-sq sequoia-chameleon-gnupg.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/bin/gpg-sq SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings, 7 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/sequoia-chameleon-gnupg/0.4.0/download#/sequoia-chameleon-gnupg-0.4.0.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a11b0fe2e73b22da4a77feef705c4f104b5cd1f7a61914e88c1ca3a5be460c1a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a11b0fe2e73b22da4a77feef705c4f104b5cd1f7a61914e88c1ca3a5be460c1a Requires -------- sequoia-chameleon-gnupg (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libbz2.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(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)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libsqlite3.so.0()(64bit) libssl.so.3()(64bit) libssl.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) rust-sequoia-chameleon-gnupg-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- sequoia-chameleon-gnupg: sequoia-chameleon-gnupg sequoia-chameleon-gnupg(x86-64) rust-sequoia-chameleon-gnupg-debugsource: rust-sequoia-chameleon-gnupg-debugsource rust-sequoia-chameleon-gnupg-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2255917 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Perl, Haskell, Python, fonts, Java, R, PHP, Ocaml, C/C++ Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- 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=2255917 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202255917%23c3 -- _______________________________________________ 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
