https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279008 --- Comment #8 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Thanks for your work! This looks much better. There are just a few remaining things before the package is ready to approve. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/include/s2n See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files This: %{_includedir}/s2n/ packages the directory %{_includedir}/s2n/ and everything under it (files, directories, whatever). Therefore, writing %dir %{_includedir}/s2n/ %{_includedir}/s2n/ lists the directory %{_includedir}/s2n twice. Please remove these redundant/duplicate entries from the %files: %dir %{_includedir}/s2n/ %dir %{_libdir}/cmake/s2n/ Note that %dir %{_docdir}/s2n-tls/ %{_docdir}/s2n-tls/docs/ is NOT redundant, because the recursively-packaged directory is a subdirectory of the directory packaged with %dir. In the current submission, the base package and the -doc subpackage co-own %{_docdir}/s2n-tls/, which is exactly correct for how you have things set up. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_the_directory_is_owned_by_a_package_which_is_not_required_for_your_package_to_function - There is an interesting rpmlint diagnostic, s2n-tls.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libs2n.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 I don’t think anything needs to be done about this. The source uses at least pow() from libm. The fact that the call is apparently optimized out is an implementation detail that we shouldn’t be relying on when choosing our linker flags, and linking libm unnecessarily doesn’t cause any significant harm. - It looks like you accidentally made the BuildRequires on openssl-devel arch-specific by adding %{?_isa}. This is *not* a good idea and is prohibited, for reasons explained in https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_buildrequires_and_isa. Please remove %{?_isa} from BuildRequires: openssl-devel%{?_isa} and put it on %package devel Summary: %{summary} Requires: openssl-devel instead. - The patch comment is helpful, but a brief mention of why it needs to be downstream-only would be nice too. ===== 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/20240515/2279008-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/src/debug, /usr/src, /usr/lib, /usr/share/licenses, /usr/include, /usr/share, /usr/share/doc, /usr/lib64, /usr/lib64/cmake, /usr These diagnostics are spurious (fedora-review bug). [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/src/debug, /usr/share/doc, /usr/share/licenses, /usr/src, /usr/lib64, /usr/include, /usr/lib64/cmake, /usr/share, /usr/lib, /usr These diagnostics are spurious (fedora-review bug). [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. ExcludeArch present and properly handled/justified; issue for s390x to be filed on import. [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 [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]: 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- devel [x]: Package functions as described. (tests pass) [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. [-]: 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. ExcludeArch present and properly handled. [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: No rpmlint messages. [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: s2n-tls-1.4.14-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm s2n-tls-devel-1.4.14-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm s2n-tls-doc-1.4.14-1.fc41.noarch.rpm s2n-tls-debuginfo-1.4.14-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm s2n-tls-debugsource-1.4.14-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm s2n-tls-1.4.14-1.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/tmp96cp5ks3')] checks: 32, packages: 6 s2n-tls-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ===================================================== 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 30 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.3 s ===================================================== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: s2n-tls-debuginfo-1.4.14-1.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/tmpugr0q4oe')] checks: 32, packages: 1 ====================================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 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: 5 s2n-tls.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 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 27 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 1.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/aws/s2n-tls/archive/v1.4.14/s2n-tls-1.4.14.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 90cd0b7b1e5ebc7e40ba5f810cc24a4d604aa534fac7260dee19a35678e38659 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 90cd0b7b1e5ebc7e40ba5f810cc24a4d604aa534fac7260dee19a35678e38659 Requires -------- s2n-tls (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-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libs2n.so.1()(64bit) openssl-devel s2n-tls(x86-64) s2n-tls-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): s2n-tls-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): s2n-tls-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- s2n-tls: libs2n.so.1()(64bit) s2n-tls s2n-tls(x86-64) s2n-tls-devel: cmake(s2n) s2n-tls-devel s2n-tls-devel(x86-64) s2n-tls-doc: s2n-tls-doc s2n-tls-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libs2n.so.1.0.0-1.4.14-1.fc41.x86_64.debug()(64bit) s2n-tls-debuginfo s2n-tls-debuginfo(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, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: R, Haskell, Perl, Java, SugarActivity, fonts, PHP, Ocaml, Python 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%23c8 -- _______________________________________________ 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
