Bug 2554659

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

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



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

C/C++:
[ ]: 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]: 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.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD 0-Clause License",
     "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "*No copyright* Public
     domain", "*No copyright* MIT No Attribution". 1249 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/fedora-packaging-local/reviews/lib25519/2554659-
     lib25519/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries
     with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: 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
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: 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 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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if
     present.
     Note: Package has .a files: lib25519-static.
[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 6684 bytes in 2 files.
[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.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     lib25519-static
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: 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]: 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: lib25519-20260614-1.fc46.x86_64.rpm
          lib25519-devel-20260614-1.fc46.x86_64.rpm
          lib25519-static-20260614-1.fc46.x86_64.rpm
          lib25519-20260614-1.fc46.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmp70s9gri7')]
checks: 32, packages: 4

lib25519.src: E: spelling-error ('microlibrary', 'Summary(en_US) microlibrary -> micro library, micro-library, microbrewery')
lib25519.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('microlibrary', 'Summary(en_US) microlibrary -> micro library, micro-library, microbrewery')
lib25519-static.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('linkable', '%description -l en_US linkable -> likable, sinkable, link able')
lib25519.spec:57: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
lib25519.spec:69: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 2 warnings, 32 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 1.9 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: lib25519-debuginfo-20260614-1.fc46.x86_64.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmpzhx8lgtr')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 23 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s 





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.10.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.15/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 33, packages: 4

lib25519.x86_64: W: spelling-error ('microlibrary', 'Summary(en_US) microlibrary -> micro library, micro-library, microbrewery')
lib25519-static.x86_64: W: spelling-error ('linkable', '%description -l en_US linkable -> likable, sinkable, link able')
 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 58 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 2.6 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://lib25519.cr.yp.to/lib25519-20260614.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 208f883405ac0c2f503c3f7d07f0e525d0b3b6f7a883ebf53d936a82840652a9
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 208f883405ac0c2f503c3f7d07f0e525d0b3b6f7a883ebf53d936a82840652a9


Requires
--------
lib25519 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    lib25519.so.1()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcpucycles.so.1()(64bit)
    librandombytes.so.1()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

lib25519-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    lib25519(x86-64)
    lib25519.so.1()(64bit)

lib25519-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    lib25519-devel(x86-64)



Provides
--------
lib25519:
    lib25519
    lib25519(x86-64)
    lib25519.so.1()(64bit)

lib25519-devel:
    lib25519-devel
    lib25519-devel(x86-64)

lib25519-static:
    lib25519-static
    lib25519-static(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2554659
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, R, fonts, Python, PHP, Perl, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) Seems ok. Thanks for bringing this to Fedora.
b) Consider using a variable to enable running the full test, replace
#LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$PWD/build/0/package/lib PATH=$PWD/build/0/package/bin:$PATH build/0/package/bin/lib25519-fulltest

with

%if %enable-fulltest
LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$PWD/build/0/package/lib PATH=$PWD/build/0/package/bin:$PATH build/0/package/bin/lib25519-fulltest
%endif

then add
%global enable-fulltest 0
at the top of the spec file
c) HTML/markdown documentation is available, it would be nice to package one of them, particularly for the API.
d) Would also be good to package the license files appropriate to Fedora by adding
%license LICENSES/0BSD.txt
%license LICENSES/MIT-0.txt
%license LICENSES/MIT.txt

to the spec file.
e) Approved.
f) Review of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2554824 would be appreciated if time allows.

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/lib25519
Monitoring:
Wasn't able to create project in Anitya. You can create it manually on: `https://release-monitoring.org`

Thank you for reviewing this!

I've added the extra license files and conditionally enabled the fulltest.
FWIW, I'm using `enable_fulltest` since the rpm macro processor doesn't seem to like '-' in macro names.
Also, I defined the global as

```
%global enable_fulltest %{!?enable_fulltest:0}%{?enable_fulltest:%enable_fulltest}
```

such that I can overwrite the default value 0 from the command line like this:

```
rpmbuild --define 'enable_fulltest 1' -ba lib25519.spec
```

The lib25519 project generates html an man pages from the markdown files.
That means the API docs are available as a man page (it's one big man page with 'redirect' pages for the function names).
I thus feel that there is somewhat value in avoiding redundant documentation formats.
There is one markdown/html file on internals I excluded because for it to make sense you really have to look into the library internals, i.e. study its source, and if you do that you already have it in your work tree.

I'll look into your submission in the next days.

FEDORA-2026-dc9e8129de (lib25519-20260614-2.fc46) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 46.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-dc9e8129de

FEDORA-2026-dc9e8129de (lib25519-20260614-2.fc46) has been pushed to the Fedora 46 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2026-4c0ea36529 (lib25519-20260614-2.fc45) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 45.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-4c0ea36529

FEDORA-2026-4c0ea36529 has been pushed to the Fedora 45 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2026-4c0ea36529 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-4c0ea36529

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2026-4c0ea36529 (lib25519-20260614-2.fc45) has been pushed to the Fedora 45 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-EPEL-2026-ad071d1a4a (lib25519-20260614-2.el10_4) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.4.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2026-ad071d1a4a

FEDORA-EPEL-2026-ad071d1a4a has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.4 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2026-ad071d1a4a

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.