Bug 1711303

Package Review
==============

[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/password-store/extensions,
     /usr/lib/password-store
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/password-store,
     /usr/lib/password-store/extensions
- rpmlint issues


Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

===== 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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/password-store/extensions,
     /usr/lib/password-store
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/password-store,
     /usr/lib/password-store/extensions
[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.
[-]: 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.
[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.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[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 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[!]: 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]: 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %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 all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: pass-pwned-0-20190516.git.884856e.fc31.noarch.rpm
          pass-pwned-0-20190516.git.884856e.fc31.src.rpm
pass-pwned.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
pass-pwned.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/pass-pwned
pass-pwned.src:36: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/password-store/extensions/pwned.bash
pass-pwned.src: W: no-%build-section
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
perl: warning: Setting locale failed.
perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings:
	LANGUAGE = (unset),
	LC_ALL = (unset),
	LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8",
	LANG = "en_US.UTF-8"
    are supported and installed on your system.
perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C").
perl: warning: Setting locale failed.
perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings:
	LANGUAGE = (unset),
	LC_ALL = (unset),
	LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8",
	LANG = "en_US.UTF-8"
    are supported and installed on your system.
perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C").
perl: warning: Setting locale failed.
perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings:
	LANGUAGE = (unset),
	LC_ALL = (unset),
	LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8",
	LANG = "en_US.UTF-8"
    are supported and installed on your system.
perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C").
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
/usr/share/rpmlint/Pkg.py:168: UnicodeWarning: decode() called on unicode string, see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1693751
  s.decode('UTF-8')
pass-pwned.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/alzeih/pass-pwned <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
pass-pwned.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
pass-pwned.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/pass-pwned
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/alzeih/pass-pwned/archive/884856e2656879dd169b4882019cae92b79e7225/pass-pwned-884856e.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 11fb30797aa72a235c461d1c2b402dd452d3d6a6731d65f07ed6e8d92f7b08dd
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 11fb30797aa72a235c461d1c2b402dd452d3d6a6731d65f07ed6e8d92f7b08dd


Requires
--------
pass-pwned (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/bash
    curl
    pass



Provides
--------
pass-pwned:
    pass-pwned

Thank you for the review!

> [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
>     Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/password-store/extensions,
>     /usr/lib/password-store
>[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
>     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/password-store,
>     /usr/lib/password-store/extensions

I am following the pattern set in pass-otp.  I suspect these directories should be owned an managed by pass, and not by a specific extension.  What do you think?

>- rpmlint issues
> pass-pwned.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
> pass-pwned.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/pass-pwned

These also appear with pass-otp and I wonder if they are caused by the nature of this being a plugin. Specifically:

* The files in the extensions directory are valid shell scripts. This is the expected location.  Pass did not provide a patch to move them to a different place if that is what Fedora wants.
* The completions are partial files as they are loaded with the main completion file.  

Any advice?

I have submitted a patch, https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pass/pull-request/1 to pass to get the extension directories owned.  Can we move forward with this approval while that patch works through the system?

The patch merged - thanks carlwgeorge!

There is no release number. You cannot change anything in the package without upstream commit.

I suggest changing Release to 0.1.20190516git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}

I see you are advocating for releases upstream, that's good. https://github.com/alzeih/pass-pwned/issues/4

I'd suggest not trying to move the spec upstream, it can only bring pain and sorrow unless you control the upstream.

Thank you Miro!

I've updated the spec and uploaded it and a new srpm.  The SRPM name is now a bit ugly, but I assume that is acceptable.

https://bex.fedorapeople.org/pass-pwned/pass-pwned-0.1.20190516git884856e.fc30-20190516.git.884856e.fc30.src.rpm
https://bex.fedorapeople.org/pass-pwned/pass-pwned.spec

Like this:

Version:        0
Release:        0.1.20190516git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}

doh! you even wrote that but the `sed` in my brain misfired.

Updated:

https://bex.fedorapeople.org/pass-pwned/pass-pwned-0-0.1.20190516git884856e.fc30.src.rpm
https://bex.fedorapeople.org/pass-pwned/pass-pwned.spec

Please fix the changelog entry after the release changed.

done - sorry for the unnecessary update step

Should be:

0-0.1.20190516.git.884856e

Sorry for the typo - what tool would have caught it on my side without relying your vgrep function?

rpmlint

Here is the output with the failure:

Checking: pass-pwned-0-0.1.20190516git884856e.fc31.noarch.rpm
          pass-pwned-0-0.1.20190516git884856e.fc31.src.rpm
pass-pwned.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0-1.20190516.git.884856e ['0-0.1.20190516git884856e.fc31', '0-0.1.20190516git884856e']
pass-pwned.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
pass-pwned.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/pass-pwned
pass-pwned.src:36: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/password-store/extensions/pwned.bash
pass-pwned.src: W: no-%build-section
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.

Now I made a typo (OMG).

Should be:

0-0.1.20190516git884856e


I recommend deleting the changelog entry and using rpmdev-bumpspec or any other automation to get a new one.

Miro, given my errors, you're allowed a typo :)

I've updated it and rpmlint looks clean to me.

rpmlint:

Checking: pass-pwned-0-0.1.20190516git884856e.fc31.noarch.rpm
          pass-pwned-0-0.1.20190516git884856e.fc31.src.rpm
pass-pwned.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
pass-pwned.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/pass-pwned
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

Both warnings here are  expected.

Checksums:

https://github.com/alzeih/pass-pwned/archive/884856e2656879dd169b4882019cae92b79e7225/pass-pwned-884856e.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 11fb30797aa72a235c461d1c2b402dd452d3d6a6731d65f07ed6e8d92f7b08dd
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 11fb30797aa72a235c461d1c2b402dd452d3d6a6731d65f07ed6e8d92f7b08dd


License note: The README mentions "Creative Commons Attribution Public License" but that is not related to any content of the package.

Everything else was already said.

Package APPROVED.

Thank you Miro!

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pass-pwned

FEDORA-2019-798c82888f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-798c82888f

FEDORA-2019-21dc0b24db has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-21dc0b24db

pass-pwned-0-0.1.20190516git884856e.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-798c82888f

pass-pwned-0-0.1.20190516git884856e.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-21dc0b24db

FEDORA-2019-451d639da9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-451d639da9

FEDORA-2019-c5b9a90eb7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-c5b9a90eb7

FEDORA-2019-84e5ab0d05 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-84e5ab0d05

pass-pwned-0-0.2.20190604gitc4cf64d.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-c5b9a90eb7

pass-pwned-0-0.2.20190604gitc4cf64d.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-84e5ab0d05

pass-pwned-0-0.2.20190604gitc4cf64d.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

pass-pwned-0-0.2.20190604gitc4cf64d.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.