Bug 1808877 (rr_aesfix)

>Summary:        correct bit errors in AES-128 key schedule
Start the summary with a Capital Letter.

># The authenticator public key obtained from release 1.0.1
># gpg2 -vv aeskeyfind-1.0.1.tar.gz.asc
>...
>Source2:        gpgkey-12E404FFD3C931F934052D06B8841A919D0FACE4.gpg
I don't have much experience with gpg, so I have to ask - any reason why this can't be done in %prep?

Spec URL: http://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/aesfix.spec
SRPM URL: http://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/aesfix-1.0.1-2.fc31.src.rpm

> Start the summary with a Capital Letter.
fixed

> I don't have much experience with gpg, so I have to ask - any reason why this can't be done in %prep?
Obtaining and manually verifying the key is one-time process. 
To have some potential to verify a signature on a package, it should not be based solely on the signature iself.
Here the search for the key is based actually on different package (aeskeyfind) and then it is applied to verify this package as well.

As the keyring is not published by the upstream I have tried to get it from the public keyservers.
To comply with the https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_verifying_signatures I have documented here
how I obtained the key.

 - %make_build already contains %{?_smp_mflags}, no need to add it a second time

 -  you're missing a BR to gcc-c++


Package approved. Please fix the aforementioned issues before import.


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

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



===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[!]: 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[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". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/aesfix/review-
     aesfix/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[-]: 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.
[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 5 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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 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).
[?]: 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.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: Source 3 is not passed to gpgverify.
[-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[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: aesfix-1.0.1-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          aesfix-debuginfo-1.0.1-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          aesfix-debugsource-1.0.1-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          aesfix-1.0.1-2.fc33.src.rpm
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Review stalled, resetting status

This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script.

The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month.
As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.

Hello,
sorry the package review slipped my mind. Please can you re-approve?

Spec URL: http://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/aesfix.spec
SRPM URL: http://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/aesfix-1.0.1-2.fc37.src.rpm

Added the BR to gcc-c++ and not adding optflags to %make_build

rpmlint aesfix.spec aesfix-1.0.1-2.fc37.src.rpm aesfix-1.0.1-2.fc37.x86_64.rpm 
================== rpmlint session starts ====================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/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: 31, packages: 3

=== 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s ===

Scratch build https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=97983086

Thank you
Michal Ambroz

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5565994
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-1808877-aesfix/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05565994-aesfix/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Please convert to SPDX with BSD-3-Clause

Otherwise it is approved.

repo request came back with error when the bug was not assigned - https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/54883
Assigning back to Robert

https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/54884

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/aesfix

I'll take the liberty of closing this ticket, as the package is now available in F39 & rawhide.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-c369a72ce8