Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/nmavrogi/fedora/crypto-policies.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/nmavrogi/fedora/crypto-policies-0.9-1.20140509gite52c9f6.fc20.src.rpm Description: This package provides update-crypto-policies, which is a tool that sets the policy applicable for the various cryptographic back-ends, such as SSL/TLS libraries. The policy set by the tool will be the default policy used by these back-ends unless the application user configures them otherwise. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/CryptoPolicy Fedora Account System Username: nmav
SRPM updated at: http://people.redhat.com/nmavrogi/fedora/crypto-policies-0.9-1.20140519gitf15621a.fc20.src.rpm
- directory /usr/share/crypto-policies is not owned by the package - it's build as arch specific, however it contains only configuration data and a shell script. Shouldn't this package be noarch? - rpmlint ------- Checking: crypto-policies-0.9-1.20140519gitf15621a.fc21.x86_64.rpm crypto-policies-0.9-1.20140519gitf15621a.fc21.src.rpm crypto-policies.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptographic -> cryptography, cryptographer, crystallographic crypto-policies.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1-gitf15621a ['0.9-1.20140519gitf15621a.fc21', '0.9-1.20140519gitf15621a'] crypto-policies.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPL crypto-policies.x86_64: E: no-binary crypto-policies.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/crypto-policies/profiles/DEFAULT.settings crypto-policies.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/crypto-policies/profiles/LEGACY.settings crypto-policies.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/crypto-policies/profiles/FUTURE.settings crypto-policies.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptographic -> cryptography, cryptographer, crystallographic crypto-policies.src: W: invalid-license LGPL crypto-policies.src: E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog: Fri May 19 2014 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <nmav> - 1-gitf15621a 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 5 warnings. - rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint crypto-policies crypto-policies.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptographic -> cryptography, cryptographer, crystallographic crypto-policies.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1-gitf15621a ['0.9-1.20140519gitf15621a.fc21', '0.9-1.20140519gitf15621a'] crypto-policies.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPL crypto-policies.x86_64: E: no-binary crypto-policies.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/crypto-policies/profiles/DEFAULT.settings crypto-policies.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/crypto-policies/profiles/LEGACY.settings crypto-policies.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/crypto-policies/profiles/FUTURE.settings 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Thanks, I've uploaded a -2 version with the changes above. I've not fixed the script-without-shebang warning as it is intentional (it's an include file, not a script by itself).
The updated SRPM: http://people.redhat.com/nmavrogi/fedora/crypto-policies-0.9-2.20140519gitf15621a.fc20.src.rpm
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/crypto-policies/profiles See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles ===== MUST items ===== 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. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/crypto-policies [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/crypto-policies [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [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. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 1 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: 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 %doc. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist [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: [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [x]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: crypto-policies-0.9-2.20140519gitf15621a.fc21.noarch.rpm crypto-policies-0.9-2.20140519gitf15621a.fc21.src.rpm crypto-policies.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptographic -> cryptography, cryptographer, crystallographic crypto-policies.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2-20140519gitf15621a ['0.9-2.20140519gitf15621a.fc21', '0.9-2.20140519gitf15621a'] crypto-policies.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/crypto-policies/profiles/DEFAULT.settings crypto-policies.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/crypto-policies/profiles/LEGACY.settings crypto-policies.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/crypto-policies/profiles/FUTURE.settings crypto-policies.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptographic -> cryptography, cryptographer, crystallographic crypto-policies.src: W: invalid-url Source0: crypto-profiles-gitf15621a.tar.gz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint crypto-policies crypto-policies.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptographic -> cryptography, cryptographer, crystallographic crypto-policies.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2-20140519gitf15621a ['0.9-2.20140519gitf15621a.fc21', '0.9-2.20140519gitf15621a'] crypto-policies.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/crypto-policies/profiles/DEFAULT.settings crypto-policies.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/crypto-policies/profiles/LEGACY.settings crypto-policies.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/crypto-policies/profiles/FUTURE.settings 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- crypto-policies (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh Provides -------- crypto-policies: crypto-policies Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1096082 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
> Issues: > ======= > - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. > Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/crypto-policies/profiles > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles ... > [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > Note: No known owner of /usr/share/crypto-policies > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/crypto-policies line 45 should be probably without profiles: 45 %dir %{_datadir}/crypto-policies > [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. is there a reason why the package has different name from upstream? > [!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. > Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments It could be nice to have a comment with instructions how to create a source tarball. > Rpmlint > ------- > crypto-policies.noarch: E: script-without-shebang > /usr/share/crypto-policies/profiles/DEFAULT.settings > crypto-policies.noarch: E: script-without-shebang > /usr/share/crypto-policies/profiles/LEGACY.settings > crypto-policies.noarch: E: script-without-shebang > /usr/share/crypto-policies/profiles/FUTURE.settings Given that those files are for including, not shell scripts, wouldn't be better have them without executable bit?
> is there a reason why the package has different name from upstream? The git repository was named with an unfortunate name and that's not possible to change now. The other issues are handled in: http://people.redhat.com/nmavrogi/fedora/crypto-policies-0.9-2.20140520git81364e4.fc20.src.rpm
* Tue May 20 2014 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <nmav> - 2-20140520git81364e4 Please provide package's E-V-R in changelog entries, in this case it would be: * Tue May 20 2014 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <nmav> - 0.9-2-20140520git81364e4 Everything else seems to be ok.
Updated, thank you.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: crypto-policies Short Description: This package provides update-crypto-policies, a tool that sets cryptographic backend policies Owners: nmav Branches: InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Looks like there's no bugzilla component for crypto-policies, I guess something must have gone wrong with the SCM request processing? Raising the fedora-cvs flag for this. Anyway, I noticed this only because I was trying to file a bug after seeing a bunch of rpm scriptlet errors installing the package: Installing : crypto-policies-0.9-3.20140520git81364e4.fc21.noarch 26/151 cat: /etc/crypto-policies/config: No such file or directory cat: /usr/share/crypto-policies/default-config: No such file or directory Couldn't read current profile warning: %post(crypto-policies-0.9-3.20140520git81364e4.fc21.noarch) scriptlet failed, exit status 1 Non-fatal POSTIN scriptlet failure in rpm package crypto-policies-0.9-3.20140520git81364e4.fc21.noarch
The git portion looks OK, try #rel-eng in IRC or filing a trac with them.