https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2342978 --- Comment #10 from Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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 This seems to be a problem. - Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: sgx-enclave-devel. Does not provide -static: sgx-enclave-devel. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries The .a files in -devel are a bit special. They provide the "SGX enclave runtime". When making an enclave you have to link with them, and they include everything needed (even the C runtime?). So they're not really Fedora static libraries in the ordinary sense. - 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 sgx-aesm, sgx-mpa, tdx-qgs See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets Maybe a problem? ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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 part of the SGX SDK, so not really used in the normal sense of *.so files. [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. 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", "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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "BSD 3-Clause License and/or OpenSSL 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", "BSD 2-clause FreeBSD License", "BSD 3-Clause License and/or GNU General Public License, Version 2", "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", "OpenSSL License", "BSD 3-Clause License and/or GNU General Public 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", "*No copyright* ISC License", "BSD 3-Clause License and/or Public domain", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Apache License 2.0 and/or BSD 3-Clause License", "BSD 2-Clause License and/or BSD 3-Clause License", "Apache License 2.0 and/or BSD 2-Clause License", "SSLeay", "Apache License 1.0 and/or OpenSSL License", "zlib License", "ISC License and/or MIT License", "BSD 2-Clause License and/or BSD-4-Clause (University of California-Specific)", "BSD 2-Clause License and/or BSD 2-clause FreeBSD License", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0". 2501 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/2342978-linux-sgx/licensecheck.txt The license analysis in the spec looks fine. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. Yes, since the other packages require sgx-common, and sgx-common includes the licenses. [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/share/aesmd, /usr/lib64/aesmd, /usr/lib64/aesmd/bundles Seems like an issue. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/udev, /usr/x86_64-intel-sgx/lib64, /usr/lib/.build-id/5b, /usr/lib64/aesmd/bundles, /usr/share/aesmd, /usr/x86_64-intel-sgx, /usr/lib/.build-id/47, /usr/lib/udev/rules.d, /usr/lib64/aesmd That .build-id directory also seems wrong. Note this is from a mock-built package on my machine. [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/x86_64-intel- sgx/lib64(sgx-enclave-prebuilt-common) Unclear. As far as I'm aware it's OK for multiple RPMs to own a directory. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. It doesn't use the compiler flags, but justifies this in the spec. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. We believe that current policy allows bundling with an exception, provided that the Provides: bundled() dependencies are added, which they are here. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. Uses autochangelog. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. Eventually after a lot of repacking, yes. [-]: 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. Note: Package contains Conflicts: tag(s) needing fix or justification. I'm not sure what it's complaining about here. There's a BuildConflicts line, but it is justified. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. (See paths problems above) [x]: 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. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. It has justified ExclusiveArch. [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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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 4346 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: 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). Complicated, but seems correct. [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in sgx- common , sgx-enclave-latest-pce-unsigned , sgx-enclave-latest-ide- unsigned , sgx-enclave-latest-qe3-unsigned , sgx-enclave-latest-tdqe- unsigned , sgx-enclave-devel , sgx-devel , sgx-libs , sgx-aesm , sgx- pccs-admin , sgx-pckid-tool , sgx-mpa , tdx-qgs , tdx-attest-libs , tdx-attest-devel Unclear. [-]: Package functions as described. [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. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments This is fine, as tarball is repacked. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. No tests. [-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [-]: Files in /run, var/run and /var/lock uses tmpfiles.d when appropriate [ ]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define linux_sgx_version 2.25, %define dcap_version 1.22, %define dcap_qvl_version 1.21, %define dcap_qvs_version 1.1.0-2885, %define sgx_ssl_version 3.0_Rev4, %define ipp_crypto_version 2021.12.1, %define sgx_emm_version 1.0.3, %define openssl_version 3.0.14, %define libcbor_version 0.10.2, %define abseil_cpp_version 20230125.3, %define jwt_cpp_version 0.6.0, %define wamr_version 1.3.3, %define epid_version 6.0.0, %define rdrand_version 1.1, %define vtune_version 2018, %define enclave_pce_version 2.25, %define enclave_ide_version 1.22, %define enclave_qe3_version 1.22, %define enclave_tdqe_version 1.22, %define enclave_qve_version 1.22, %define with_enclaves 1, %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, %define _with_enclave_pce %{expr:%{with_enclaves} ? %{with_enclave_pce} : 0}, %define _with_enclave_ide %{expr:%{with_enclaves} ? %{with_enclave_ide} : 0}, %define _with_enclave_qe3 %{expr:%{with_enclaves} ? %{with_enclave_qe3} : 0}, %define _with_enclave_tdqe %{expr:%{with_enclaves} ? %{with_enclave_tdqe} : 0}, %define _with_enclave_qve %{expr:%{with_enclaves} ? %{with_enclave_qve} : 0}, %define vroot build/vroot I believe this requirement is wrong, %define is fine with modern RPM. [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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 debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. (will attach rpmlint output separately as it's too large for a bugzilla comment) -- 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=2342978 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202342978%23c10 -- _______________________________________________ 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
