Bug 2282603

Summary: Review Request: mbedtls3.6 - Light-weight cryptographic and SSL/TLS library
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Bill Roberts <bill.roberts>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Benson Muite <benson_muite>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: benson_muite, package-review, pbrobinson
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: AutomationTriaged
Target Release: ---Flags: benson_muite: fedora-review+
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
URL: https://www.trustedfirmware.org/projects/mbed-tls
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2024-09-13 20:55:35 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Attachments:
Description Flags
The .spec file difference from Copr build 7932233 to 7947955
none
The .spec file difference from Copr build 7947955 to 7948361 none

Description Bill Roberts 2024-05-22 16:10:38 UTC 
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/billatarm/mbedtls-3.6/3.6.0-b2/mbedtls3.6.spec
SRPM URL: https://github.com/billatarm/mbedtls-3.6/releases/download/3.6.0-b2/mbedtls3.6-3.6.0-1.fc40.src.rpm
Description: 
Mbed TLS is a light-weight open source cryptographic and SSL/TLS
library written in C. Mbed TLS makes it easy for developers to include
cryptographic and SSL/TLS capabilities in their (embedded)
applications with as little hassle as possible.

Fedora Account System Username: wcrobert

This is to supercede the request for mbedtls3 per the discussions here:
  - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2154347

The reason for per-version package names is that:
1. side by side installs for mbedtls 2.28 (current package) and updating packages since no backwards compat
2. upstream versioning does not guarentee ABI stability through major versions
  a. upstream is also not bumping soversion reliably
Comment 1 Fedora Review Service 2024-05-22 16:28:35 UTC 
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7476528
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2282603-mbedtls-3.6/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07476528-mbedtls-3.6/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.
Comment 2 Benson Muite 2024-05-22 16:59:06 UTC 
*** Bug 2154347 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 3 Benson Muite 2024-05-25 14:09:07 UTC 
Spec url needs to be in a form where the spec file can be downloaded by wget

spec: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/billatarm/mbedtls3.6/3.6.0-b0/mbedtls3.6.spec
srpm: https://github.com/billatarm/mbedtls3.6/releases/download/3.6.0-b0/mbedtls-3.6-3.6.0-1.fc41.src.rpm
Comment 4 Benson Muite 2024-05-26 07:43:00 UTC 
Package Review
==============

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


Issues:
=======
- Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
  %{name}.spec.
  Note: mbedtls3.6.spec should be mbedtls-3.6.spec
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/#_spec_file_naming


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

C/C++:
[-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
     Note: Sources not installed
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
     upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
     licenses manually.
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib64/cmake(rizin-devel,
     PackageKit-Qt5-devel, pulseaudio-libs-devel, libarcus-devel, openobex-
     devel, boost-devel, PackageKit-Qt6-devel, priv_wrapper, qt5-qtbase,
     qjson-qt5-devel, paraview-devel, leatherman-devel, catalyst-devel,
     marble-widget-qt5-devel, kqtquickcharts, marble-astro-devel, qjson-
     devel, cmake-filesystem, libsavitar-devel, uid_wrapper, ginac-devel,
     SDL2_image-devel), /usr/lib64/pkgconfig(dontpanic-devel, ignition-
     math-devel, pcsc-lite-devel, libmodsecurity-devel, bemenu-devel,
     ignition-transport-devel, mbedtls-devel, nexus-devel, pkgconf-pkg-
     config, libloc-devel, priv_wrapper, uid_wrapper, xalan-c-devel)
[ ]: %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.
[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).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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 336367 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[-]: 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.
[ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: 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]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Bad spec filename: /home/fedora/2282603-mbedtls3.6/srpm-
     unpacked/mbedtls3.6.spec
     See: (this test has no URL)
[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.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: mbedtls-3.6-3.6.0-1.fc41.aarch64.rpm
          mbedtls-3.6-devel-3.6.0-1.fc41.aarch64.rpm
          mbedtls-3.6-doc-3.6.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm
          mbedtls-3.6-debuginfo-3.6.0-1.fc41.aarch64.rpm
          mbedtls-3.6-debugsource-3.6.0-1.fc41.aarch64.rpm
          mbedtls-3.6-3.6.0-1.fc41.src.rpm
===================================================== rpmlint session starts =====================================================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpaafneafd')]
checks: 32, packages: 6

mbedtls-3.6-devel.aarch64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libeverest-3.6.so
mbedtls-3.6-devel.aarch64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libp256m-3.6.so
mbedtls-3.6-devel.aarch64: E: shared-library-not-executable /usr/lib64/libeverest-3.6.so
mbedtls-3.6-devel.aarch64: E: shared-library-not-executable /usr/lib64/libp256m-3.6.so
mbedtls-3.6-devel.aarch64: E: non-devel-file-in-devel-package /usr/lib64/libeverest-3.6.so
mbedtls-3.6-devel.aarch64: E: non-devel-file-in-devel-package /usr/lib64/libp256m-3.6.so
mbedtls-3.6-devel.aarch64: W: no-documentation
mbedtls3.6.spec:55: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 30, tab: line 55)
mbedtls3.6.spec:89: W: macro-in-comment %check
mbedtls3.6.spec:90: W: macro-in-comment %ctest
mbedtls-3.6.src: E: invalid-spec-name
mbedtls-3.6.aarch64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 3.6.0 ['3.6.0-1.fc41', '3.6.0-1']
mbedtls-3.6-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/mbedtls-3.6/dot_inline_dotgraph_2.png /usr/share/doc/mbedtls-3.6/dot_inline_dotgraph_1.png
mbedtls-3.6-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/mbedtls-3.6/search/groups_0.js /usr/share/doc/mbedtls-3.6/search/all_1.js
mbedtls-3.6-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/mbedtls-3.6/search/variables_13.js /usr/share/doc/mbedtls-3.6/search/all_16.js
mbedtls-3.6-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/mbedtls-3.6/search/groups_14.js /usr/share/doc/mbedtls-3.6/search/all_18.js
mbedtls-3.6-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/mbedtls-3.6/search/variables_15.js /usr/share/doc/mbedtls-3.6/search/all_1a.js
mbedtls-3.6-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/mbedtls-3.6/search/pages_1.js /usr/share/doc/mbedtls-3.6/search/all_2.js
mbedtls-3.6-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/mbedtls-3.6/search/variables_0.js /usr/share/doc/mbedtls-3.6/search/all_3.js
=============== 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 14 warnings, 53 filtered, 5 badness; has taken 3.4 s ===============




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: mbedtls-3.6-debuginfo-3.6.0-1.fc41.aarch64.rpm
===================================================== rpmlint session starts =====================================================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp1_iw2_dp')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

=============== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 13 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s ================





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/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: 32, packages: 5

mbedtls-3.6-devel.aarch64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libeverest-3.6.so
mbedtls-3.6-devel.aarch64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libp256m-3.6.so
mbedtls-3.6-devel.aarch64: E: shared-library-not-executable /usr/lib64/libeverest-3.6.so
mbedtls-3.6-devel.aarch64: E: shared-library-not-executable /usr/lib64/libp256m-3.6.so
mbedtls-3.6-devel.aarch64: E: non-devel-file-in-devel-package /usr/lib64/libeverest-3.6.so
mbedtls-3.6-devel.aarch64: E: non-devel-file-in-devel-package /usr/lib64/libp256m-3.6.so
mbedtls-3.6-devel.aarch64: W: no-documentation
mbedtls-3.6.aarch64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 3.6.0 ['3.6.0-1.fc41', '3.6.0-1']
mbedtls-3.6-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/mbedtls-3.6/dot_inline_dotgraph_2.png /usr/share/doc/mbedtls-3.6/dot_inline_dotgraph_1.png
mbedtls-3.6-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/mbedtls-3.6/search/groups_0.js /usr/share/doc/mbedtls-3.6/search/all_1.js
mbedtls-3.6-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/mbedtls-3.6/search/variables_13.js /usr/share/doc/mbedtls-3.6/search/all_16.js
mbedtls-3.6-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/mbedtls-3.6/search/groups_14.js /usr/share/doc/mbedtls-3.6/search/all_18.js
mbedtls-3.6-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/mbedtls-3.6/search/variables_15.js /usr/share/doc/mbedtls-3.6/search/all_1a.js
mbedtls-3.6-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/mbedtls-3.6/search/pages_1.js /usr/share/doc/mbedtls-3.6/search/all_2.js
mbedtls-3.6-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/mbedtls-3.6/search/variables_0.js /usr/share/doc/mbedtls-3.6/search/all_3.js
 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 11 warnings, 50 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 3.3 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/Mbed-TLS/mbedtls/releases/download/v3.6.0/mbedtls-3.6.0.tar.bz2 :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 3ecf94fcfdaacafb757786a01b7538a61750ebd85c4b024f56ff8ba1490fcd38
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3ecf94fcfdaacafb757786a01b7538a61750ebd85c4b024f56ff8ba1490fcd38


Requires
--------
mbedtls-3.6 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libmbedcrypto-3.6.so.16()(64bit)
    libmbedx509-3.6.so.7()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

mbedtls-3.6-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    cmake-filesystem(aarch-64)
    libmbedcrypto-3.6.so.16()(64bit)
    libmbedtls-3.6.so.21()(64bit)
    libmbedx509-3.6.so.7()(64bit)
    mbedtls-3.6(aarch-64)
    pkgconfig(mbedcrypto-3.6)
    pkgconfig(mbedx509-3.6)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

mbedtls-3.6-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

mbedtls-3.6-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

mbedtls-3.6-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
mbedtls-3.6:
    libmbedcrypto-3.6.so.16()(64bit)
    libmbedtls-3.6.so.21()(64bit)
    libmbedx509-3.6.so.7()(64bit)
    mbedtls-3.6
    mbedtls-3.6(aarch-64)

mbedtls-3.6-devel:
    cmake(MbedTLS)
    cmake(mbedtls)
    libeverest-3.6.so()(64bit)
    libp256m-3.6.so()(64bit)
    mbedtls-3.6-devel
    mbedtls-3.6-devel(aarch-64)
    pkgconfig(mbedcrypto-3.6)
    pkgconfig(mbedtls-3.6)
    pkgconfig(mbedx509-3.6)

mbedtls-3.6-doc:
    mbedtls-3.6-doc

mbedtls-3.6-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    libmbedcrypto-3.6.so.3.6.0-3.6.0-1.fc41.aarch64.debug()(64bit)
    libmbedtls-3.6.so.3.6.0-3.6.0-1.fc41.aarch64.debug()(64bit)
    libmbedx509-3.6.so.3.6.0-3.6.0-1.fc41.aarch64.debug()(64bit)
    mbedtls-3.6-debuginfo
    mbedtls-3.6-debuginfo(aarch-64)

mbedtls-3.6-debugsource:
    mbedtls-3.6-debugsource
    mbedtls-3.6-debugsource(aarch-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2282603
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64
Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Python, Perl, Haskell, Java, fonts, PHP, R, Ocaml
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) Consider adding README.md, SUPPORT.md and SECURITY.md to the documentation in the main package
b) Why is %ldconfig_scriptlets needed? Can probably be dropped.
c) Can non-network tests be run?
d) doc package should also have license file as it does not require the main package
e) Sonames should not be globbed:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_soname_handling
f) Maybe it is better to add a patch to the CMake configuration to enable installation in a prefixed
directory, rather than moving after doing the install.  This may be useful for other distributions,
so having it upstream will reduce reduplicated efforts.
g) In Fedora, generally the latest release gets a name without a version attached.  May wish to
co-ordinate with current Mbed TLS 2.28 maintainers about naming.
Comment 5 Bill Roberts 2024-06-04 20:42:29 UTC 
> In Fedora, generally the latest release gets a name without a version attached.  May wish to
> co-ordinate with current Mbed TLS 2.28 maintainers about naming.

Not really sure about this one, Mbed TLS 2.28 will stay the mbedtls package until they EOL 2.28 LTS.
The reason for adding the version suffix to the package was discussed here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2154347,
Am I missing something else from your comment here?
Comment 6 Bill Roberts 2024-06-05 14:47:33 UTC 
> Consider adding README.md, SUPPORT.md and SECURITY.md to the documentation in the main package

Is their an example package with these? Or some guidelines of what they should include?

> Why is %ldconfig_scriptlets needed? Can probably be dropped.

Copy paste from previous mbedtls.spec file, and yes it can be dropped.

> Can non-network tests be run?

Their testing framework is insane, it actually builds the source multiple times and would need a lot of
work to get it to function like a traditional build system. `--except` is handy, but you essentially
end up removing all the tests because they all build the source.

> doc package should also have license file as it does not require the main package

Fixed.

> Sonames should not be globbed:

Fixed

> Maybe it is better to add a patch to the CMake configuration to enable installation in a prefixed
> directory, rather than moving after doing the install.  This may be useful for other distributions,
> so having it upstream will reduce reduplicated efforts.

I can work on upstreaming something.
Comment 7 Benson Muite 2024-07-11 02:17:29 UTC 
Documentation on naming
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#multiple
Comment 8 Bill Roberts 2024-07-30 15:02:31 UTC 
Ahh thanks Benson, I see that the number should be appended, no suffix, will update.
Comment 9 Bill Roberts 2024-07-30 16:51:45 UTC 
Benson, I have updated the branch on Github.
Comment 10 Bill Roberts 2024-08-14 18:50:43 UTC 
I updated the URLs but fedora-review -b 2282603 still uses the old spec and SRPM links :-(

INFO: Processing bugzilla bug: 2282603
INFO: Getting .spec and .srpm Urls from : 2282603
INFO:   --> SRPM url: https://github.com/billatarm/mbedtls3.6/releases/download/3.6.0-b0/mbedtls-3.6-3.6.0-1.fc41.src.rpm
INFO:   --> Spec url: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/billatarm/mbedtls3.6/3.6.0-b0/mbedtls3.6.spec
Comment 11 Bill Roberts 2024-08-20 14:39:38 UTC 
Perhaps they are getting populated from comment 3. Lets see if adding them here helps.

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/billatarm/mbedtls-3.6/3.6.0-b1/mbedtls3.6.spec
SRPM URL: https://github.com/billatarm/mbedtls-3.6/releases/download/3.6.0-b1/mbedtls3.6-3.6.0-1.fc40.src.rpm
Comment 12 Benson Muite 2024-08-21 10:19:40 UTC 
Spec: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/billatarm/mbedtls-3.6/3.6.0-b1/mbedtls3.6.spec
SRPM: https://github.com/billatarm/mbedtls-3.6/releases/download/3.6.0-b1/mbedtls3.6-3.6.0-1.fc40.src.rpm

[fedora-review-service-build]
Comment 13 Fedora Review Service 2024-08-21 19:35:58 UTC 
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7932233
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2282603-mbedtls3.6/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07932233-mbedtls3.6/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.
Comment 14 Benson Muite 2024-08-27 03:23:07 UTC 
Blocking issue is the license field, otherwise seems ok.

Comments:

1) Suggest changing:
Source0: https://github.com/Mbed-TLS/mbedtls/releases/download/v3.6.0/mbedtls-3.6.0.tar.bz2
to
Source0: https://github.com/Mbed-TLS/mbedtls/releases/download/v%{version}/mbedtls-%{version}.tar.bz2

to allow easier minor version updates.

2) Should BSD-3_Clause also be added as a license:
https://github.com/Mbed-TLS/mbedtls/blob/mbedtls-3.6/configs/ext/crypto_config_profile_medium.h

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/
If so, please add a license breakdown in the spec file, indicating the file that is BSD-3-Clause
and that all other files are under Apache-2.0

3) It builds successfully on all architectures:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=122535332
Comment 15 Bill Roberts 2024-08-27 14:35:09 UTC 
> Suggest changing:
> Source0: https://github.com/Mbed-TLS/mbedtls/releases/download/v3.6.0/mbedtls-3.6.0.tar.bz2
> to
> Source0: https://github.com/Mbed-TLS/mbedtls/releases/download/v%{version}/mbedtls-%{version}.tar.bz2
>
> to allow easier minor version updates.

Done and other places as well.

> Should BSD-3_Clause also be added as a license:

Along with an OR clause for GPL-2.0-or-later. I let upstream know that their license file is also missing BSD3 for that one file
if they explicitly want to enumerate it.

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/billatarm/mbedtls-3.6/3.6.0-b2/mbedtls3.6.spec
SRPM URL: https://github.com/billatarm/mbedtls-3.6/releases/download/3.6.0-b2/mbedtls3.6-3.6.0-1.fc40.src.rpm
Comment 16 Fedora Review Service 2024-08-27 15:39:47 UTC 
Created attachment 2044938 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 7932233 to 7947955
Comment 17 Fedora Review Service 2024-08-27 15:39:49 UTC 
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7947955
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2282603-mbedtls3.6/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07947955-mbedtls3.6/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.
Comment 18 Bill Roberts 2024-08-27 19:44:38 UTC 
>> Should BSD-3_Clause also be added as a license:

> Along with an OR clause for GPL-2.0-or-later. I let upstream know that their license file is also missing BSD3 for that one file
> if they explicitly want to enumerate it.

Actually just the dual license, it's re-licensed:
  - https://github.com/Mbed-TLS/mbedtls/blob/development/configs/ext/README.md
Comment 19 Bill Roberts 2024-08-27 19:54:06 UTC 
Updated.

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/billatarm/mbedtls-3.6/3.6.0-b3/mbedtls3.6.spec
SRPM URL: https://github.com/billatarm/mbedtls-3.6/releases/download/3.6.0-b3/mbedtls3.6-3.6.0-1.fc40.src.rpm
Comment 20 Fedora Review Service 2024-08-27 20:00:29 UTC 
Created attachment 2044949 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 7947955 to 7948361
Comment 21 Fedora Review Service 2024-08-27 20:00:31 UTC 
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7948361
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2282603-mbedtls3.6/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07948361-mbedtls3.6/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.
Comment 22 Benson Muite 2024-08-28 02:49:13 UTC 
Thanks. One further minor point, the line
* Tue Apr 02 2024 Bill Roberts <bill.roberts> - 3.6.0
should be changed to
* Tue Apr 02 2024 Bill Roberts <bill.roberts> - 3.6.0-1

The last part is the release number.  This can be done on import.

Approved.
Comment 23 Bill Roberts 2024-08-28 15:56:29 UTC 
Thanks Benson, are there any docs that describe the import process or what's required? Sorry, I'm a noob.
Comment 24 Peter Robinson 2024-08-28 16:24:43 UTC 
(In reply to Bill Roberts from comment #23)
> Thanks Benson, are there any docs that describe the import process or what's
> required? Sorry, I'm a noob.

fedpkg request-repo NAME RHBZ
<wait>
fedpkg clone NAME
cd NAME
fedpkg import name-nvr.src.rpm
git commit -a -m "initial import"
git push
fedpkg build

Should get you most of the way, the Fedora packaging docs have the details:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/

Feel free to reach out if you need any specifics
Comment 25 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2024-08-28 16:34:31 UTC 
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mbedtls3.6
Comment 26 Bill Roberts 2024-08-28 16:35:10 UTC 
Thanks Peter, request is done here: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/65764
Comment 27 Bill Roberts 2024-08-28 17:15:34 UTC 
So Peter I am at the import step, but I am getting this error:

fedpkg import /home/bill/workspace/packages/mbedtls-3.6/mbedtls3.6-3.6.0-1.fc40.src.rpm
Uploading: /home/bill/workspace/packages/mbedtls3.6/mbedtls-3.6.0.tar.bz2 to https://src.fedoraproject.org/repo/pkgs/upload.cgi
Could not execute import_srpm: Dist-git request is unauthorized.
Comment 28 Peter Robinson 2024-08-28 17:50:47 UTC 
> Could not execute import_srpm: Dist-git request is unauthorized.

Do you have a fedora kerberos token? There's some docs here for that: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora-accounts/user/#pkinit
Comment 29 Bill Roberts 2024-08-28 19:13:21 UTC 
Yep, that works. Kicked a build, I can see it in the build status. AFAICT now I just sit back and wait for to get added to a release?
  - https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mbedtls3.6
Comment 30 Peter Robinson 2024-08-28 19:16:18 UTC 
You can also build it for f41 with the following (it would be good to get into f41 too):

fedpkg request-branch f41
git pull
git checkout f41
git merge rawhide
git push
fedpkg build
fedpkg update (fill in the form and save it, just set new-package at the top).
Comment 31 Bill Roberts 2024-08-29 18:58:10 UTC 
Again, thanks Peter. Branch requested: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/65907
Comment 32 Fedora Update System 2024-09-02 10:51:49 UTC 
FEDORA-2024-993c50d7c1 (mbedtls3.6-3.6.0-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-993c50d7c1
Comment 33 Fedora Update System 2024-09-03 03:49:15 UTC 
FEDORA-2024-993c50d7c1 has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-993c50d7c1 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-993c50d7c1

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
Comment 34 Fedora Update System 2024-09-13 20:55:35 UTC 
FEDORA-2024-9a87127dd0 (mbedtls3.6-3.6.1-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.