Bug 1229349 - Review Request: radcli - Radius client library
Summary: Review Request: radcli - Radius client library
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Christopher Meng
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2015-06-08 14:04 UTC by Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
Modified: 2015-10-07 20:11 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-10-07 16:37:35 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
i: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos 2015-06-08 14:04:45 UTC
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/nmavrogi/fedora/radcli.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/nmavrogi/fedora/radcli-1.2.0-1.fc22.src.rpm
Description: The radcli library is a library for writing RADIUS Clients. The library's approach is to allow writing RADIUS-aware application in less than 50 lines of C code. It was based originally on freeradius-client and is source compatible with it.
Fedora Account System Username: nmav

Comment 2 Michael Schwendt 2015-06-23 11:35:44 UTC
> Summary: RADIUS protocol client library
> Group: Applications/Internet

The Group tag for base runtime libraries is "System Environment/Libraries" for many years.

Nowadays the tag is obsolete:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Group_tag


> Conflicts: freeradius-client-devel, radiusclient-ng-devel

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Conflicts
 -> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts
  -> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts#Header_Name_Conflicts
  -> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts#Other_Uses_of_Conflicts:


> %dir %{_sysconfdir}/radcli
> %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/%{name}/radiusclient.conf

Why do you spell out "radcli" in one line but use %{name} elsewhere?


> %files devel
> 
> %{_includedir}/freeradius-client.h
> %{_includedir}/radiusclient-ng.h
> %{_includedir}/radcli/radcli.h
> %{_includedir}/radcli/version.h
> %{_libdir}/libfreeradius-client.so
> %{_libdir}/libradiusclient-ng.so
> %{_libdir}/libradcli.so
> %{_mandir}/man3/*
> %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/*.pc

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership

Comment 3 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos 2015-06-24 10:02:59 UTC
I'd like to add this package to EPEL7 hence the tag. I've updated the spec to address your comments.

Comment 4 Christopher Meng 2015-08-18 02:29:46 UTC
I'm having problem with nearby mirrors which can't even update my system now. I will review this when I have access to updates. mock throws updates when I try to review packages everytime. Network I'm using is using CDN cache which causes too many troubles and I'm asking for an examination in few days.

Some issues pointed first:

1. From what I can understand, it's a library forked from radius-client, because I saw a very familiar name in beginning of every file ;)

I don't think you need to install that license breakdown, just put it in dist-git. These files are not included in main or devel subpkg. No one can find them from your package.

Under MIT license:
lib/avpair.c, lib/buildreq.c, lib/clientid.c, lib/config.c, lib/dict.c,
lib/env.c, lib/ip_util.c, lib/log.c, lib/sendserver.c, lib/util.c,
src/local.c, src/radacct.c, src/radexample.c, src/radius.c, src/radlogin.c,
src/radstatus.c

under BSD license:
lib/util.c, src/radiusclient.c, lib/rc-md5.c, lib/tls.c

2. %description devel
Development files for radcli

Better:

%description devel
This package contains libraries and header files for
developing applications that use %{name}.

Also:

%description
of C code. It was based originally on freeradius-client and is source compatible
with it.

 compatible
with it.

You don't need to open a newline and put "with it" into that.

3. cp %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/%{name}/dictionary %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/%{name}/dictionary

->

cp -p

4. in etc/:

$(INSTALL) -m 600 $(srcdir)/servers $(DESTDIR)$(pkgsysconfdir)/servers"

Is 60 intended to be the proper(best/safest) permission?

5. You said you've dropped the port map[1], but I still can see it in tests, by the  way why are tests disabled?

6. * Mon Jun  15 2015 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos - 1.2.1-1
- Initial package

Leave your email there, and drop redundant space.

7. If you need to autoreconf, then BR autoconf, automake, libtool, otherwise please drop them. I've seen rpath hack in the spec, since this is your project, can this be avoided during releasing?


[1]---https://github.com/radcli/radcli/commit/64a26f116b7e2197c7a92e329c93f288adfed0c4

Comment 5 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos 2015-08-19 14:22:02 UTC
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #4)
> Some issues pointed first:
> 1. From what I can understand, it's a library forked from radius-client,
> because I saw a very familiar name in beginning of every file ;)

Correct. Do you mean Lars Fenneberg?

> I don't think you need to install that license breakdown, just put it in
> dist-git. These files are not included in main or devel subpkg. No one can
> find them from your package.

I've put it directly to the spec. It's not so long.

> 2. %description devel
> Development files for radcli
> Better:
> %description devel
> This package contains libraries and header files for
> developing applications that use %{name}.

Done

> 3. cp %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/%{name}/dictionary
> %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/%{name}/dictionary
> ->
> cp -p
Done.

> 4. in etc/:
> $(INSTALL) -m 600 $(srcdir)/servers $(DESTDIR)$(pkgsysconfdir)/servers"
> Is 60 intended to be the proper(best/safest) permission?

Yes.
 
> 5. You said you've dropped the port map[1], but I still can see it in tests,
> by the  way why are tests disabled?

The tests which are skipped require a functioning radius server, if that's what you mean. The portmap in tests is a leftover. No need to remove it for the fedora package as it is not installed.

> 6. * Mon Jun  15 2015 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos - 1.2.1-1
> - Initial package
> Leave your email there, and drop redundant space.

Done.

> 7. If you need to autoreconf, then BR autoconf, automake, libtool, otherwise
> please drop them.
Commented out.

> I've seen rpath hack in the spec, since this is your
> project, can this be avoided during releasing?

Since, this is a Fedora thing it has to got to autotools directly or stay within Fedora.

Comment 6 Christopher Meng 2015-08-21 09:54:43 UTC
Package Review
==============

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


Issues:
=======
- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines


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

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "BSD (2 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)",
     "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Public domain". 28 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck:

*No copyright* Public domain
----------------------------
radcli-1.2.1/lib/md5.h

BSD (2 clause)
--------------
radcli-1.2.1/lib/aaa_ctx.c
radcli-1.2.1/lib/tls.c
radcli-1.2.1/lib/tls.h
radcli-1.2.1/src/radiusclient.c
radcli-1.2.1/tests/avpair.c
radcli-1.2.1/tests/tls-restart.c

GPL (v2 or later)
-----------------
radcli-1.2.1/ltmain.sh

GPL (v3 or later)
-----------------
radcli-1.2.1/doc/scripts/getfuncs.pl

Unknown or generated
--------------------
radcli-1.2.1/include/freeradius-client.h
radcli-1.2.1/include/includes.h
radcli-1.2.1/include/messages.h
radcli-1.2.1/include/pathnames.h
radcli-1.2.1/include/radcli/radcli.h
radcli-1.2.1/include/radcli/version.h
radcli-1.2.1/include/radiusclient-ng.h
radcli-1.2.1/lib/avpair.c
radcli-1.2.1/lib/buildreq.c
radcli-1.2.1/lib/config.c
radcli-1.2.1/lib/dict.c
radcli-1.2.1/lib/ip_util.c
radcli-1.2.1/lib/log.c
radcli-1.2.1/lib/options.h
radcli-1.2.1/lib/rc-md5.c
radcli-1.2.1/lib/rc-md5.h
radcli-1.2.1/lib/sendserver.c
radcli-1.2.1/lib/util.c
radcli-1.2.1/lib/util.h
radcli-1.2.1/src/common.c
radcli-1.2.1/src/common.h
radcli-1.2.1/src/radacct.c
radcli-1.2.1/src/radembedded.c
radcli-1.2.1/src/radexample.c
radcli-1.2.1/src/radstatus.c
radcli-1.2.1/tests/basic-tests.sh
radcli-1.2.1/tests/ipv6-tests.sh
radcli-1.2.1/tests/tls-tests.sh

[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/include/radcli
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/radcli
[x]: %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).
[x]: 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.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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 10240 bytes in 2 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]: 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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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 use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[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]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

Generic:
[x]: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in radcli-
     debuginfo
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
     Note: %define requiring justification: %{expand:%(echo "%%define
     myversion %{version}" | sed 's/\./_/g')}
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.

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

Generic:
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: Mock build failed
     See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint
[!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
     Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment.
     See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.


Installation errors
-------------------
INFO: mock.py version 1.2.12 starting (python version = 3.4.3)...
Start: init plugins
INFO: selinux disabled
Finish: init plugins
Start: run
Start: chroot init
INFO: calling preinit hooks
INFO: enabled root cache
INFO: enabled dnf cache
Start: cleaning dnf metadata
Finish: cleaning dnf metadata
INFO: enabled ccache
Mock Version: 1.2.12
INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.12
Finish: chroot init
INFO: installing package(s): /home/rpmaker/Desktop/radcli/results/radcli-1.2.1-1.fc24.i686.rpm /home/rpmaker/Desktop/radcli/results/radcli-devel-1.2.1-1.fc24.i686.rpm /home/rpmaker/Desktop/radcli/results/radcli-debuginfo-1.2.1-1.fc24.i686.rpm /home/rpmaker/Desktop/radcli/results/radcli-debuginfo-1.2.1-1.fc24.i686.rpm
ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output.
 # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/ --releasever 24 install /home/rpmaker/Desktop/radcli/results/radcli-1.2.1-1.fc24.i686.rpm /home/rpmaker/Desktop/radcli/results/radcli-devel-1.2.1-1.fc24.i686.rpm /home/rpmaker/Desktop/radcli/results/radcli-debuginfo-1.2.1-1.fc24.i686.rpm /home/rpmaker/Desktop/radcli/results/radcli-debuginfo-1.2.1-1.fc24.i686.rpm


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: radcli-1.2.1-1.fc24.i686.rpm
          radcli-devel-1.2.1-1.fc24.i686.rpm
          radcli-debuginfo-1.2.1-1.fc24.i686.rpm
          radcli-1.2.1-1.fc24.src.rpm
radcli.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US freeradius -> free radius, free-radius, freeloader
radcli.i686: E: non-readable /etc/radcli/servers 600
radcli.i686: E: non-readable /etc/radcli/servers-tls 600
radcli.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US freeradius -> free radius, free-radius, freeloader
radcli.src: E: specfile-error warning: Macro %myversion defined but not used within scope
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 2 warnings.




Requires
--------
radcli-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    libradcli.so.3
    pkgconfig(gnutls)
    pkgconfig(nettle)
    radcli(x86-32)

radcli-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

radcli (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /sbin/ldconfig
    config(radcli)
    libc.so.6
    libgnutls.so.30
    libgnutls.so.30(GNUTLS_3_4)
    libnettle.so.6
    libnettle.so.6(NETTLE_6)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
radcli-devel:
    pkgconfig(radcli)
    radcli-devel
    radcli-devel(x86-32)

radcli-debuginfo:
    radcli-debuginfo
    radcli-debuginfo(x86-32)

radcli:
    config(radcli)
    libradcli.so.3
    radcli
    radcli(x86-32)



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/radcli/radcli/releases/download/radcli_1_2_1/radcli-1.2.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 80fe7afe5abb464255ede3cce43cae6b533df23a535f70438c5161c39d67fc8f
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 80fe7afe5abb464255ede3cce43cae6b533df23a535f70438c5161c39d67fc8f


AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found
------------------------------
  AM_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: radcli-1.2.1/configure.ac:32
  AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: radcli-1.2.1/configure.ac:26
  AM_CONFIG_HEADER found in: radcli-1.2.1/configure.ac:256


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -rvn radcli-1.2.1-1.fc22.src.rpm
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

------------------------------
1. If this is a fork, please fix missing license headers.

2. AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found, fix them in the future.

3. Fix [!] issues, and upload new SRPM and SPEC, I will review again then approve.

Comment 7 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos 2015-08-21 16:21:40 UTC
> [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
>      Note: No known owner of /usr/include/radcli
> [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
>      Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/radcli

Fixed.

> [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
>     Note: %define requiring justification: %{expand:%(echo "%%define
>     myversion %{version}" | sed 's/\./_/g')}

Replaced with global.

> [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
>      Note: Mock build failed
>      See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint

That was because of your previous suggestion to combine the description.
Fixed.

> [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
>      Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment.
>      See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools

Done upstream. Will pull on the next update.
https://github.com/radcli/radcli/commit/295464b056ee8c1de7b0bd1c8aca5b6f31660fe1
https://github.com/radcli/radcli/commit/cf8790b28261046dbc61c03cf01868d00504a694

> 1. If this is a fork, please fix missing license headers.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I've added the headers into the license breakdown, if that's what you ask.

> 2. AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found, fix them in the future.

Done upstream.

> 3. Fix [!] issues, and upload new SRPM and SPEC, 

Done.


Updated links:
http://people.redhat.com/nmavrogi/fedora/radcli.spec
http://people.redhat.com/nmavrogi/fedora/radcli-1.2.2-1.fc22.src.rpm

Comment 8 Christopher Meng 2015-08-27 04:18:21 UTC
(In reply to Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos from comment #7)
> > 1. If this is a fork, please fix missing license headers.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean here. I've added the headers into the license
> breakdown, if that's what you ask.

Non-blocker issue, I said you should add license header to each file of sources.

PACKAGE APPROVED.

PS. Will any packages use this in the future?

Comment 9 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos 2015-08-27 08:30:56 UTC
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #8)

> > I'm not sure what you mean here. I've added the headers into the license
> > breakdown, if that's what you ask.
> 
> Non-blocker issue, I said you should add license header to each file of
> sources.
Probably a good idea.

> PS. Will any packages use this in the future?

Yes, that's the plan.

Comment 10 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos 2015-08-27 08:31:09 UTC
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: radcli
Short Description: Radius client library 
Owners: nmav
Branches: f23 epel7
InitialCC:

Comment 11 Gwyn Ciesla 2015-08-27 12:45:20 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2015-09-02 09:44:00 UTC
radcli-1.2.3-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-7894

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2015-09-03 09:52:51 UTC
radcli-1.2.3-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.\nIf you want to test the update, you can install it with \n su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update radcli'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-14833

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2015-09-03 17:20:02 UTC
radcli-1.2.3-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.\nIf you want to test the update, you can install it with \n su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update radcli'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-7894

Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2015-10-07 16:37:32 UTC
radcli-1.2.3-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 16 Fedora Update System 2015-10-07 20:11:21 UTC
radcli-1.2.3-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.