Bug 2196274

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5897247
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2196274-actor-framework/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05897247-actor-framework/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.

SPEC URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/actor-framework.spec
SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/actor-framework-0.19.1-1.fc39.src.rpm

fix owner of directory

Created attachment 1963640 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5897247 to 5905027

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5905027
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2196274-actor-framework/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05905027-actor-framework/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.

This isn't really relevant for the review, but a hint to save work:
> # https://github.com/actor-framework/actor-framework/commit/db5fd0b2f56e4df14fe9a407f0461d1c34c42fbd
> Patch0:         actor-framework-fix-tools.patch
I'd write this as
  Patch: https://github.com/actor-framework/actor-framework/commit/db5fd0b2f56e4df14fe9a407f0461d1c34c42fbd.patch
This has the advantage that 'spectool -g *.spec' will just download the file without further ado.

> License:        BSD-3-Clause OR BSL-1.0
I think this needs to be "AND" instead. The sources are under the first license,
but they are also combined with some other (header) files to form the compiled
product. The result must then satisfy both licenses, i.e. is under the first and
the second license.

> actor-framework-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary caf-run
> actor-framework-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary caf-vec
> actor-framework-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> actor-framework-tools.x86_64: W: no-documentation
Meh.

> actor-framework.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/lib64/libcaf_openssl.so.0.19.1 SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list
This one is fairly problematic. The code does:
  SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list(ctx, "HIGH:!aNULL:!MD5")
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/CryptoPolicies/#_cc_applications
says:
> check the source code for SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list(). If it is not present then nothing needs to be done (the default is used). Otherwise, if that call is present and provided a fixed string which does not contain PSK or SRP, replace the string with "PROFILE=SYSTEM", or remove the call.

> 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.3 s 

Quoting Frostyx's review service:

Requires (with glibc and linker stuff removed)
--------
actor-framework (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libcaf_core.so.0.19.1()(64bit)
    libcaf_io.so.0.19.1()(64bit)
    libcrypto.so.3()(64bit)
    libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit)
    libssl.so.3()(64bit)
    libssl.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit)
    
actor-framework-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    actor-framework(x86-64)
    cmake-filesystem(x86-64)
    libcaf_core.so.0.19.1()(64bit)
    libcaf_io.so.0.19.1()(64bit)
    libcaf_net.so.0.19.1()(64bit)
    libcaf_openssl.so.0.19.1()(64bit)

actor-framework-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    actor-framework(x86-64)
    libcaf_core.so.0.19.1()(64bit)
    libcaf_io.so.0.19.1()(64bit)

actor-framework-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

actor-framework-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

Provides
--------
actor-framework:
    actor-framework
    actor-framework(x86-64)
    libcaf_core.so.0.19.1()(64bit)
    libcaf_io.so.0.19.1()(64bit)
    libcaf_net.so.0.19.1()(64bit)
    libcaf_openssl.so.0.19.1()(64bit)

actor-framework-devel:
    actor-framework-devel
    actor-framework-devel(x86-64)
    cmake(CAF)
    cmake(caf)

actor-framework-tools:
    actor-framework-tools
    actor-framework-tools(x86-64)

Looks all good. (Or even better than "good". The spec file is very clean.)

+ package name is OK
+ license is acceptable for Fedora (BSD-3-Clause)
- license is specified correctly (see above)
+ builds and installs OK
+ BR/P/R look correct
+ no scriptlets needed or present
- rpmlint finds one issue (see above)

The PR of https://github.com/actor-framework/actor-framework/pull/1411 was merged by the upstream maintainer trying to solve the warning of crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl, and the new release 0.19.2 was published. But rpmlint tool also reported the warning with the building of the new release.

ref: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/topazus/test-review/build/6072938/
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/topazus/test-review/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06072938-actor-framework/fedora-review/review.txt

update to new release:
SPEC URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/actor-framework.spec
SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/actor-framework-0.19.2-1.fc39.src.rpm

Created attachment 1970700 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5905027 to 6073691

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6073691
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2196274-actor-framework/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06073691-actor-framework/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.

Hello, I wonder is there any comments on the rpmlint warning of crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl even for the latest release?