Spec URL: http://tmp.tulak.me/rdrand/RdRand.spec SRPM URL: http://tmp.tulak.me/rdrand/RdRand-1.0.0-1.fc19.src.rpm Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6362106 Description: Library for easier usage of Intel's RdRand instruction. Fedora Account System Username: jtulak I'm the author of the library and this is my first Fedora package. Full Description: RdRand is an instruction for returning random numbers from an on-chip hardware random number generator. It's available on Ivy Bridge and Haswell processors and is part of the Intel 64 and IA-32 instruction set architectures. The hardware random number generator is compliant with security and cryptography standards such as NIST SP 800-90A, FIPS 140-2 and ANSI X9.82. This library offers high level functions to fill the buffer with random numbers using the various methods and offers the procedures focused on speed and security. There is also a user space utility to produce the stream of random numbers. This package contain a C library for easier usage of the instruction (no need for using __asm__, ...) and a simple application for users to generate random numbers. Jan Tulak
Initial comments: -SPEC file - please add the pkconfig files to the devel package -man pages - various improvemnts to context - see the private e-mail -small fixes to handling of command arguments - see the private e-mail The SPEC file itself is clean:-)
Resolved all issues off line. $rpmlint /home/jhladky/rpmbuild/SRPMS/RdRand-1.0.2-1.fc18.src.rpm RdRand.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C RdRand RdRand.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptograhically -> photographically, typographically, topographically 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. $rpmlint /home/jhladky/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/RdRand-1.0.2-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm RdRand.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C RdRand RdRand.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptograhically -> photographically, typographically, topographically 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. APPROVED
+: OK -: must be fixed =: should be fixed (at your discretion) ?: Question or clairification needed N: not applicable MUST: [+] rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review. [+] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . [+] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [+] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . [+] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . [+] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [+] 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 must be included in %doc. [+] The spec file must be written in American English. [+] The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. 7e4a0f0612e04c1e6483783d3089173c46410e176f32af69adf25d20793f2159 [+] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [+] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. [+] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. [N] The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. [Y] Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [+] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [+] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. [+] A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [+] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations) [+] Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. [+] Each package must consistently use macros. [+] The package must contain code, or permissable content. [N] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [+] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [N] Static libraries must be in a -static package. [+] Development files must be in a -devel package. [-] In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} [+] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [N] Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. [+] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [+] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. SHOULD: [N] If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [N] The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [+] The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [+] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [+] The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. [+] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [+] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [+] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [N] If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [+] your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. *** APPROVED ***
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: RdRand Short Description: Library for generating random numbers using the RdRand instruction on Intel CPUs Owners: Jan Tulak <jan> Jirka Hladky <hladky.jiri> Branches: f19 f20 el6 epel7 InitialCC: Jan Tulak <jan> Jirka Hladky <hladky.jiri>
Use FAS accounts, not email addresses.
few issues in the package to fix - use ExclusiveArch: %{ix86} x86_64 instead of ExcludeArch, there is no chance Intel instructions will work somewhere else - drop the %clean section, %defattr in %files and "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" in %build, it's all done by rpm since F-12 and EL-6 - use an empty line as a delimiter of changelog entries - drop the BuildRequires: autoconf libtool - all required files are already in the source archive and they shouldn't be regenerated during build and one more general note - you shouldn't include the autotools' temporary outputs like the autom4te.cache and .deps directories, generated Makefile, etc in the git tree (and source archive)
for the record - Jiri agrees to be Jan's mentor when I will sponsor Jan.
Created attachment 859653 [details] Spec file update 2014-02-05
(In reply to Dan Horák from comment #6) > few issues in the package to fix Fixed (see attachment). > and one more general note - you shouldn't include the autotools' temporary > outputs like the autom4te.cache and .deps directories, generated Makefile, > etc in the git tree (and source archive) Files removed from git, new release (1.0.4) created.
Thanks Honzo! I have reviewed the changes in RdRand.spec file. Everything looks great besides this: RdRand.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0.2-2 ['1.0.4-2.fc18', '1.0.4-2'] The latest entry in %changelog contains a version identifier that is not coherent with the epoch:version-release tuple of the package. Please update the spec file and once you are sponsored create Package SCM Request. Jirka
Created attachment 859671 [details] Spec file update 2014-02-05 #2 Fixed the changelog issue.
Thanks Honzo! *** PACKAGE IS APPROVED *** Dan, could you please sponsor Jan? Thanks! Jirka
I will ask for one more iteration of the spec - you seem to forgot the %defattr in the devel subpackage - remove the commented out line from the spec - replace the .gz suffix with * on the pages, make it eg. %{_mandir}/man7/rdrand-gen.7* - the compression algorithm can be changed or dropped
Created attachment 860241 [details] Spec file update #3 %defattr from devel removed, as well as commented out lines and the suffix.
thanks, almost acceptable now, just one little issue, please change the man pages to %{_mandir}/man7/rdrand-gen.7* => there is no dot between the section and the star so it can accept uncompressed man pages as compressed ones
Created attachment 864074 [details] Spec file update #4 Dot removed.
now I am satisfied :-) The package is APPROVED also from the sponsor.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: RdRand Short Description: Library for generating random numbers using the RdRand instruction on Intel CPUs Owners: jtulak jhladky Branches: f19 f20 el6 epel7 InitialCC: Jan Tulak <jan> Jirka Hladky <hladky.jiri>
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: RdRand Short Description: Library for generating random numbers using the RdRand instruction on Intel CPUs Owners: jtulak jhladky Branches: f19 f20 el6 epel7 InitialCC: jtulak jhladky
Git done (by process-git-requests).
RdRand-1.0.5-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/RdRand-1.0.5-1.fc20
RdRand-1.0.5-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/RdRand-1.0.5-1.fc19
RdRand-1.0.5-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.
RdRand-1.0.5-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/RdRand-1.0.5-1.el6
RdRand-1.0.5-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
RdRand-1.0.5-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
RdRand-1.0.5-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.