https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279008 --- Comment #4 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - If s2n-tls-cmake.patch is suitable for offering upstream, please do so. Otherwise, please add a comment briefly explaining what the patch does and why it makes sense for it to be downstream-only. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_all_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment - The organization into a libs subpackage and a base package with only documentation and license files and a libs package, with a circular dependency between the two, is workable, but unusual and probably more complicated than necessary considering that there are no command-line tools to package in the base package. I think that it would make sense to either: 1. put the shared libraries %{_libdir}/libs2n.so.1{,.*} in the base s2n-tls package, and let the -devel package depend on that – the simplest, most “normal” approach – or, 2. put the license and small doc files README.md in VERSIONING.rst in the -libs subpackage, and let the base package have no %files section at all, so that no s2n-tls binary package is built The package can still be approved even if you decide not to change anything about this. - This is correct, and there is nothing wrong with it: %dir %{_libdir}/cmake/s2n %dir %{_libdir}/cmake/s2n/modules %dir %{_libdir}/cmake/s2n/shared %{_libdir}/cmake/s2n/*.cmake %{_libdir}/cmake/s2n/modules/*.cmake %{_libdir}/cmake/s2n/shared/*.cmake However, you may find it easier to just name the directory and all of its contents: %{_libdir}/cmake/s2n/ The trailing slash is not required but is good style to make it clear that a directory is meant (and it does keep it from matching a file with the same name). Similarly, you *could* choose to replace %dir %{_includedir}/s2n %dir %{_includedir}/s2n/unstable %{_includedir}/s2n/unstable/*.h with %{_includedir}/s2n/ and %dir %{_docdir}/s2n-tls/docs/ %dir %{_docdir}/s2n-tls/docs/images/ %dir %{_docdir}/s2n-tls/docs/examples/ %{_docdir}/s2n-tls/docs/*.md %{_docdir}/s2n-tls/docs/images/*.png %{_docdir}/s2n-tls/docs/images/*.svg %{_docdir}/s2n-tls/docs/examples/*.c with %{_docdir}/s2n-tls/docs/ The package can still be approved even if you decide not to change anything about this. - The package creates, but does not own, /usr/share/doc/s2n-tls; the -doc package needs to own that: %dir %{_docdir}/s2n-tls/ - Version 1.4.14 is now available. Please update. It doesn’t look like any packaging changes will be required. - It is unnecessary (albeit permissible) to number the sources and patches in Fedora. You could choose to change Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz Patch0: s2n-tls-cmake.patch to Source: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz Patch: s2n-tls-cmake.patch - The runtime dependency on openssl-libs is already handled by the RPM dependency generators: s2n-tls-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): […] libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) […] You “MUST NOT” duplicate these automatic dependencies with manual dependencies; see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_package_dependencies. Please remove this: Requires: openssl-libs - The dependency on openssl-devel from s2n-tls-devel should be arch-specific. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_specific_dependencies. Please change Requires: openssl-devel to Requires: openssl-devel%{?_isa} - You can, if you choose, avoid repetition by writing Summary: %{summary} in each of the subpackages. Similarly, in the base package, you can write %global _description %{expand: s2n-tls is a C99 implementation of the TLS/SSL protocols that is designed to be simple, small, fast, and with security as a priority.} %description %{_description} and then %description doc %{_description} and so on. - The package fails to build on i686: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=117611667 You may either fix the problem, or add ExcludeArch: %{ix86} (see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval). Any arched packages that depend directly or indirectly on this one will need to add the ExcludeArch, too. The package also fails to build on s390x due to several test failures: The following tests FAILED: 67 - s2n_early_data_io_api_test (Failed) 106 - s2n_hkdf_test (Failed) 149 - s2n_psk_test (Failed) 208 - s2n_server_new_session_ticket_test (Failed) 238 - s2n_tls13_handshake_early_data_test (Failed) 241 - s2n_tls13_hybrid_shared_secret_test (Failed) 242 - s2n_tls13_key_schedule_rfc8448_test (Failed) 244 - s2n_tls13_keys_test (Failed) 248 - s2n_tls13_prf_test (Failed) 250 - s2n_tls13_secrets_rfc8448_test (Failed) 251 - s2n_tls13_secrets_test (Failed) Failures that occur only on s390x are usually due to implicit assumptions that the host is little-endian, since s390x is the only big-endian primary architecture in Fedora. These could be problems with the tests or with the actual library implementation; I haven’t tried to investigate. For these, you have the same options (fix, or add ExcludeArch: s390x here and in all directly or indirectly dependent packages), but in this case if you add the ExcludeArch you must also file a bug blocking F-ExcludeArch-s390x as prescribed in https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_build_failures. - It looks like the -doc subpackage contains only arch-independent files. You should make the subpackage noarch: %package doc Summary: %{summary} BuildArch: noarch %description doc %{_description} ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0", "MIT No Attribution", "Apache License 2.0 and/or OpenSSL License". 6827 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/Downloads/review/2279008-s2n-tls/licensecheck.txt Files under licenses other than Apache-2.0 are: MIT-0: .github/workflows/proof_ci.yaml tests/cbmc/proofs/Makefile.common tests/cbmc/proofs/lib/print_tool_versions.py tests/cbmc/proofs/lib/summarize.py tests/cbmc/proofs/run-cbmc-proofs.py None of these contributes to the binary RPMs, so MIT-0 correctly does not appear in the license expression. The detection of "Apache License 2.0 and/or OpenSSL License" is spurious; the file codebuild/bin/install_openssl_1_0_2_fips.sh is only Apache-2.0. [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, /usr/src/debug, /usr/share/licenses, /usr/lib, /usr/lib64/cmake, /usr/share/doc, /usr/src, /usr/include, /usr/lib64, /usr/share These diagnostics are spurious (fedora-review bug). [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include, /usr, /usr/src/debug, /usr/lib, /usr/lib64, /usr/share/licenses, /usr/lib64/cmake, /usr/src, /usr/share, /usr/share/doc/s2n-tls, /usr/share/doc These diagnostics are spurious (fedora-review bug), except for /usr/share/doc/s2n-tls; the -doc package should own that: %dir %{_docdir}/s2n-tls/ [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. [!]: 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 10994 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines (unless otherwise noted) [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 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in s2n-tls- libs , s2n-tls-devel [x]: Package functions as described. (tests pass) [!]: 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [!]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=117611667 [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: [ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1054720 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: s2n-tls-1.4.13-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm s2n-tls-libs-1.4.13-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm s2n-tls-devel-1.4.13-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm s2n-tls-doc-1.4.13-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm s2n-tls-debugsource-1.4.13-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm s2n-tls-1.4.13-1.fc41.src.rpm =========================================================================================== 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpzkcve8g5')] checks: 32, packages: 6 s2n-tls-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation s2n-tls.x86_64: E: no-binary s2n-tls-doc.x86_64: E: no-binary s2n-tls.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency openssl-libs ===================================================== 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 1 warnings, 32 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 0.8 s ===================================================== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: s2n-tls-libs-debuginfo-1.4.13-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm =========================================================================================== 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpxisnduk4')] checks: 32, packages: 1 ====================================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 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: 6 s2n-tls-libs.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libs2n.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 s2n-tls-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation s2n-tls.x86_64: E: no-binary s2n-tls-doc.x86_64: E: no-binary s2n-tls.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency openssl-libs 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 1 warnings, 32 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.7 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/aws/s2n-tls/archive/v1.4.13/s2n-tls-1.4.13.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8b0b36697963d6752e5a1b49e28e393605990d348edf1aef6f39c33164d45edb CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8b0b36697963d6752e5a1b49e28e393605990d348edf1aef6f39c33164d45edb Requires -------- s2n-tls (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): openssl-libs s2n-tls-libs(x86-64) s2n-tls-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): 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_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) s2n-tls(x86-64) s2n-tls-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libs2n.so.1()(64bit) openssl-devel s2n-tls-libs(x86-64) s2n-tls-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): s2n-tls-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- s2n-tls: s2n-tls s2n-tls(x86-64) s2n-tls-libs: libs2n.so.1()(64bit) s2n-tls-libs s2n-tls-libs(x86-64) s2n-tls-devel: cmake(s2n) s2n-tls-devel s2n-tls-devel(x86-64) s2n-tls-doc: s2n-tls-doc s2n-tls-doc(x86-64) s2n-tls-debugsource: s2n-tls-debugsource s2n-tls-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2279008 --mock-options=--dnf Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, R, SugarActivity, Java, Haskell, Ocaml, fonts, Python, Perl 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=2279008 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202279008%23c4 -- _______________________________________________ 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
