https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2338150 Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |rjones@xxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #7 from Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> --- This is an unusual package, but I ran fedora-review on it anyway and here is my review ... Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ Not needed because we don't actually build anything. - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'Apache-2.0 AND BSD-2-Clause AND BSD-3-Clause AND BSD-4-Clause AND BSD-4-Clause-UC AND GPL-2.0-only AND ISC AND MIT AND MIT-0 AND NCSA AND OpenSSL AND SMLNJ AND SunPro AND LicenseRef-Public-Domain'. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 It's claiming this is not valid SPDX, which I'm not sure about. Maybe there's some real mistake in there? ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. (For a rather narrow definition of kernel module I suppose ...) [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. These are apparently not real .so files, so that's OK. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. Open source, but bundling a signed binary, which is OK because of the FESCO exception. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-Clause License and/or BSD 3-Clause License and/or Eclipse Public License 1.0", "BSD 3-Clause License", "Eclipse Public License 1.0", "BSD 2-Clause License and/or BSD 2-clause NetBSD License", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "*No copyright* zlib License", "University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "ISC License", "MIT License", "BSD 3-Clause License and/or MIT License", "BSD 2-Clause License", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "Apple Public Source License 2.0", "*No copyright* The Unlicense", "BSD 2-clause FreeBSD License", "BSD 3-Clause License and/or GNU General Public License, Version 2", "BSD 3-Clause License and/or OpenSSL License", "Standard ML of New Jersey License", "MIT No Attribution", "BSD 4-Clause License", "*No copyright* Public domain", "BSD 3-Clause License and/or BSD 4-Clause License", "BSD 3-Clause License and/or GNU General Public License", "OpenSSL License", "BSD-4-Clause (University of California-Specific)", "BSD 3-Clause License and/or Microsoft Public License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "FSF All Permissive License", "*No copyright* Eclipse Public License 1.0", "Boost Software License 1.0", "Apache License 2.0 and/or GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Apache License 2.0 and/or BSD 3-Clause License", "Apache License 2.0 and/or BSD 2-Clause License". 1890 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/2338150-linux- sgx-enclaves-prebuilt/licensecheck.txt (Possibly wrong, see above) [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. Yes, licenses are in the -common submodule which is required by the others. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/x86_64-intel-sgx, /usr/x86_64-intel- sgx/lib64 [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/x86_64-intel-sgx, /usr/x86_64-intel-sgx/lib64 This could be a real problem. Dan, does another package own sgx_libdir? [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. FESCO exception. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. Using autochangelog. [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 [-]: 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. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. ExclusiveArch is included & correct. [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]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source2: https://download.01.org/intel- sgx/sgx-dcap/1.22/linux/prebuilt_dcap_1.22-repacked.tar.gz See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/SourceURL/ I get a 404 for this URL. [-]: 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 sgx- enclave-prebuilt-common , sgx-enclave-prebuilt-pce-signed , sgx- enclave-prebuilt-ide-signed , sgx-enclave-prebuilt-qe3-signed , sgx- enclave-prebuilt-tdqe-signed Unclear, but might this be needed? [-]: Package functions as described. I didn't check, but Dan is running this stuff. [x]: Latest version is packaged. Yes, latest version is 1.22. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments Apart from the 404 problem, I'm not clear what fedora-review is complaining about here. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [-]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define debug_package %{nil}, %define linux_sgx_version 2.25, %define dcap_version 1.22, %define with_enclave_pce 1, %define with_enclave_ide 1, %define with_enclave_qe3 1, %define with_enclave_tdqe 1, %define with_enclave_qve 0 I don't think this check point is relevant any longer with the latest RPM versions. [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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. ===== 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: sgx-enclave-prebuilt-common-2.25-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm sgx-enclave-prebuilt-pce-signed-2.25-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm sgx-enclave-prebuilt-ide-signed-2.25-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm sgx-enclave-prebuilt-qe3-signed-2.25-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm sgx-enclave-prebuilt-tdqe-signed-2.25-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm linux-sgx-enclaves-prebuilt-2.25-1.fc42.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmp0vf7nptt')] checks: 32, packages: 6 sgx-enclave-prebuilt-ide-signed.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/x86_64-intel-sgx/lib64/libsgx_id_enclave.signed.so.1.19.100.1 sgx-enclave-prebuilt-pce-signed.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/x86_64-intel-sgx/lib64/libsgx_pce.signed.so.1.22.100.1 sgx-enclave-prebuilt-qe3-signed.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/x86_64-intel-sgx/lib64/libsgx_qe3.signed.so.1.19.100.1 sgx-enclave-prebuilt-tdqe-signed.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/x86_64-intel-sgx/lib64/libsgx_tdqe.signed.so.1.19.100.1 sgx-enclave-prebuilt-common.x86_64: W: no-documentation sgx-enclave-prebuilt-ide-signed.x86_64: W: no-documentation sgx-enclave-prebuilt-pce-signed.x86_64: W: no-documentation sgx-enclave-prebuilt-qe3-signed.x86_64: W: no-documentation sgx-enclave-prebuilt-tdqe-signed.x86_64: W: no-documentation sgx-enclave-prebuilt-common.x86_64: E: no-binary linux-sgx-enclaves-prebuilt.spec: W: no-%check-section linux-sgx-enclaves-prebuilt.src: W: invalid-license LicenseRef-Public-Domain sgx-enclave-prebuilt-common.x86_64: W: invalid-license LicenseRef-Public-Domain sgx-enclave-prebuilt-ide-signed.x86_64: W: invalid-license LicenseRef-Public-Domain sgx-enclave-prebuilt-pce-signed.x86_64: W: invalid-license LicenseRef-Public-Domain sgx-enclave-prebuilt-qe3-signed.x86_64: W: invalid-license LicenseRef-Public-Domain sgx-enclave-prebuilt-tdqe-signed.x86_64: W: invalid-license LicenseRef-Public-Domain sgx-enclave-prebuilt-ide-signed.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/x86_64-intel-sgx/lib64/libsgx_id_enclave.signed.so sgx-enclave-prebuilt-pce-signed.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/x86_64-intel-sgx/lib64/libsgx_pce.signed.so sgx-enclave-prebuilt-qe3-signed.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/x86_64-intel-sgx/lib64/libsgx_qe3.signed.so sgx-enclave-prebuilt-tdqe-signed.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/x86_64-intel-sgx/lib64/libsgx_tdqe.signed.so 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 16 warnings, 31 filtered, 5 badness; has taken 0.5 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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 sgx-enclave-prebuilt-qe3-signed.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/x86_64-intel-sgx/lib64/libsgx_qe3.signed.so.1.19.100.1 sgx-enclave-prebuilt-pce-signed.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/x86_64-intel-sgx/lib64/libsgx_pce.signed.so.1.22.100.1 sgx-enclave-prebuilt-tdqe-signed.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/x86_64-intel-sgx/lib64/libsgx_tdqe.signed.so.1.19.100.1 sgx-enclave-prebuilt-ide-signed.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/x86_64-intel-sgx/lib64/libsgx_id_enclave.signed.so.1.19.100.1 sgx-enclave-prebuilt-qe3-signed.x86_64: W: no-documentation sgx-enclave-prebuilt-common.x86_64: W: no-documentation sgx-enclave-prebuilt-pce-signed.x86_64: W: no-documentation sgx-enclave-prebuilt-tdqe-signed.x86_64: W: no-documentation sgx-enclave-prebuilt-ide-signed.x86_64: W: no-documentation sgx-enclave-prebuilt-common.x86_64: E: no-binary sgx-enclave-prebuilt-qe3-signed.x86_64: W: invalid-license LicenseRef-Public-Domain sgx-enclave-prebuilt-common.x86_64: W: invalid-license LicenseRef-Public-Domain sgx-enclave-prebuilt-pce-signed.x86_64: W: invalid-license LicenseRef-Public-Domain sgx-enclave-prebuilt-tdqe-signed.x86_64: W: invalid-license LicenseRef-Public-Domain sgx-enclave-prebuilt-ide-signed.x86_64: W: invalid-license LicenseRef-Public-Domain sgx-enclave-prebuilt-qe3-signed.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/x86_64-intel-sgx/lib64/libsgx_qe3.signed.so sgx-enclave-prebuilt-pce-signed.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/x86_64-intel-sgx/lib64/libsgx_pce.signed.so sgx-enclave-prebuilt-tdqe-signed.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/x86_64-intel-sgx/lib64/libsgx_tdqe.signed.so sgx-enclave-prebuilt-ide-signed.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/x86_64-intel-sgx/lib64/libsgx_id_enclave.signed.so 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 14 warnings, 27 filtered, 5 badness; has taken 0.1 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- sgx-enclave-prebuilt-pce-signed: /usr/x86_64-intel-sgx/lib64/libsgx_pce.signed.so sgx-enclave-prebuilt-ide-signed: /usr/x86_64-intel-sgx/lib64/libsgx_id_enclave.signed.so sgx-enclave-prebuilt-qe3-signed: /usr/x86_64-intel-sgx/lib64/libsgx_qe3.signed.so sgx-enclave-prebuilt-tdqe-signed: /usr/x86_64-intel-sgx/lib64/libsgx_tdqe.signed.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/intel/SGXDataCenterAttestationPrimitives/archive/refs/tags/dcap_1.22_reproducible.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0110b2d430a7b45d88caba673b816f7e62e8d03e2885fd416b3b1612266cab28 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0110b2d430a7b45d88caba673b816f7e62e8d03e2885fd416b3b1612266cab28 https://github.com/intel/linux-sgx/archive/refs/tags/sgx_2.25_reproducible.tar.gz#/linux-sgx-2.25-reproducible.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : daea19fd5a61941b3e3203cdc93ad0115c6b750e1316fb444d63c257d123f5c9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : daea19fd5a61941b3e3203cdc93ad0115c6b750e1316fb444d63c257d123f5c9 Requires -------- sgx-enclave-prebuilt-common (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): sgx-enclave-prebuilt-pce-signed (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): sgx-enclave-prebuilt-common sgx-enclave-prebuilt-ide-signed (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): sgx-enclave-prebuilt-common sgx-enclave-prebuilt-qe3-signed (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): sgx-enclave-prebuilt-common sgx-enclave-prebuilt-tdqe-signed (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): sgx-enclave-prebuilt-common Provides -------- sgx-enclave-prebuilt-common: sgx-enclave-prebuilt-common sgx-enclave-prebuilt-common(x86-64) sgx-enclave-prebuilt-pce-signed: sgx-enclave(pce:signed) sgx-enclave(pce:signed:prebuilt) sgx-enclave-prebuilt-pce-signed sgx-enclave-prebuilt-pce-signed(x86-64) sgx-enclave-prebuilt-ide-signed: sgx-enclave(ide:signed) sgx-enclave(ide:signed:prebuilt) sgx-enclave-prebuilt-ide-signed sgx-enclave-prebuilt-ide-signed(x86-64) sgx-enclave-prebuilt-qe3-signed: libsgx_qe3.signed.so.1(qe3_enclave.so)(64bit) sgx-enclave(qe3:signed) sgx-enclave(qe3:signed:prebuilt) sgx-enclave-prebuilt-qe3-signed sgx-enclave-prebuilt-qe3-signed(x86-64) sgx-enclave-prebuilt-tdqe-signed: sgx-enclave(tdqe:signed) sgx-enclave(tdqe:signed:prebuilt) sgx-enclave-prebuilt-tdqe-signed sgx-enclave-prebuilt-tdqe-signed(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2338150 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, Python, Haskell, Ocaml, R, SugarActivity, fonts, Java, PHP 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=2338150 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202338150%23c7 -- _______________________________________________ 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
