This package is intended for EPEL-6 only. Spec URL: https://jvcelak.fedorapeople.org/review/gnutls30/3.5.3-1/gnutls30.spec SRPM URL: https://jvcelak.fedorapeople.org/review/gnutls30/3.5.3-1/gnutls30.spec Description: GnuTLS is a secure communications library implementing the SSL, TLS and DTLS protocols and technologies around them. It provides a simple C language application programming interface (API) to access the secure communications protocols as well as APIs to parse and write X.509, PKCS #12, OpenPGP and other required structures. Fedora Account System Username: jvcelak
The RHEL-6 contains GnuTLS 2 but some software (e.g. Knot DNS 2.x) requires at least GnuTLS 3.3. This is a library-only package (no tools or documentation is provided) and can be coinstalled with gnutls from the RHEL repositories. Package gnutls30-devel (new) conflicts with gnutls-devel (RHEL).
Test builds are in COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jvcelak/gnutls30/ Please note that nettle-devel which is currently in epel-testing is needed: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-546f73e84a
Nikos, please, do you mind doing the review?
Sorry, fixed SRPM link: Spec URL: https://jvcelak.fedorapeople.org/review/gnutls30/3.5.3-1/gnutls30.spec SRPM URL: https://jvcelak.fedorapeople.org/review/gnutls30/gnutls30-3.5.3-1.el6.src.rpm
Issues: ======= - Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Bundled gnulib but no Provides: bundled(gnulib) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Requirement_if_you_bundle - ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. Note: /sbin/ldconfig not called in gnutls30, gnutls30-dane See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Shared_Libraries - License text is not installed with %doc or %license - License in spec does not match the actual license (LGPLv2+ - missing '+') - Package bundles libtasn1 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bundled_Software_policy - gnutls30-devel conflicts with gnutls-devel The last two are the most important. Bundling policy has been relaxed in later releases, but still bundled libraries need to be identified and justified in the spec file. For the last one I do not know whether it applies or not, a mail to epel-devel could be used to address it. In https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies it says "EPEL packages must never conflict with packages in RHEL Base", however, I'm not sure whether that includes the -devel packages or not.
Thank you, Nikos. Please, can you take a look at the updated package. I believe I've resolved all the issues. > - Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. > Note: Bundled gnulib but no Provides: bundled(gnulib) Fixed. > - ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. Fixed. (I always forget.) > - License text is not installed with %doc or %license Fixed. COPYING.LESSER is included in the main package. > - License in spec does not match the actual license (LGPLv2+ - missing '+') Fixed. Good catch. > - Package bundles libtasn1 I think that bundling libtasn1 can be justified in this case based on the result of quick discussion in #epel and by investigating existing packages in the repository. There is currently no other package that would require recent version of libtasn1. Having a separate forward compatibility package would just increase the maintenance burden with no benefit. I've added bundled(libtasn1) Provides so this can be eventually tracked. > - gnutls30-devel conflicts with gnutls-devel Fixed. The headers are now located in /usr/include/gnutls30/gnutls, unversioned libraries are in /usr/libXX/gnutls30, and pkg-config files were modified appropriately. I've also included simple README.fedora describing what has to be done to compile against gnutls30-devel instead of gnutls-devel. I've tested that the packages can be co-installed with gnutls-devel and that building to the individual versions of the library is possible just by setting the pkg-config search paths. In addition, I've eliminated rpath on libgnutls-dane and libgnutlsxx. Updated SPEC: https://jvcelak.fedorapeople.org/review/gnutls30/3.5.3-3/gnutls30.spec Updated SRPM: https://jvcelak.fedorapeople.org/review/gnutls30/gnutls30-3.5.3-3.el6.src.rpm Binary build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jvcelak/gnutls30/build/445951/
I just saw the error below. I'm verifying what it means. Rpmlint ------- Checking: gnutls30-3.5.3-3.fc24.i686.rpm gnutls30-dane-3.5.3-3.fc24.i686.rpm gnutls30-devel-3.5.3-3.fc24.i686.rpm gnutls30-debuginfo-3.5.3-3.fc24.i686.rpm gnutls30-3.5.3-3.fc24.src.rpm gnutls30.i686: E: shlib-with-non-pic-code /usr/lib/libgnutls.so.30.9.0
The error is only on x86. This can be worked-around by specifying: --disable-hardware-acceleration on the x86 arch. I'll try to find out the culprit, but other than this issue everything is ok.
I could no reproduce it locally with a newer gcc. Anyway with the work-around everything seems ok for el6. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. [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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 40960 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]: 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]: 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]: 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]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in gnutls30-debuginfo [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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. [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: gnutls30-3.5.3-3.fc24.i686.rpm gnutls30-dane-3.5.3-3.fc24.i686.rpm gnutls30-devel-3.5.3-3.fc24.i686.rpm gnutls30-debuginfo-3.5.3-3.fc24.i686.rpm gnutls30-3.5.3-3.fc24.src.rpm gnutls30.i686: E: shlib-with-non-pic-code /usr/lib/libgnutls.so.30.9.0 gnutls30.i686: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-gnutls-1 /usr/lib/libgnutlsxx.so.28.1.0 gnutls_priority_set_direct gnutls30-dane.i686: W: no-documentation gnutls30-devel.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib gnutls30.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{srcname} gnutls30.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{version} gnutls30.src:12: W: macro-in-comment %{srcname} gnutls30.src:12: W: macro-in-comment %{version} gnutls30.src: W: invalid-url Source0: gnutls-3.5.3-hobbled.tar.xz 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings. Requires -------- gnutls30-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gnutls30 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libgmp.so.10 libgnutls.so.30 libgnutls.so.30(GNUTLS_3_4) libhogweed.so.4 libhogweed.so.4(HOGWEED_4) libidn.so.11 libidn.so.11(LIBIDN_1.0) libm.so.6 libnettle.so.6 libnettle.so.6(NETTLE_6) libstdc++.so.6 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9) libz.so.1 rtld(GNU_HASH) gnutls30-dane (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig gnutls30(x86-32) libc.so.6 libgnutls.so.30 libgnutls.so.30(GNUTLS_3_4) libgnutls.so.30(GNUTLS_PRIVATE_3_4) libunbound.so.2 rtld(GNU_HASH) gnutls30-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gnutls30(x86-32) gnutls30-dane(x86-32) libgnutls-dane.so.0 libgnutls.so.30 libgnutlsxx.so.28 Provides -------- gnutls30-debuginfo: gnutls30-debuginfo gnutls30-debuginfo(x86-32) gnutls30: bundled(gnulib) bundled(libtasn1) gnutls30 gnutls30(x86-32) libgnutls.so.30 libgnutls.so.30(GNUTLS_3_4) libgnutls.so.30(GNUTLS_FIPS140_3_4) libgnutls.so.30(GNUTLS_PRIVATE_3_4) libgnutlsxx.so.28 gnutls30-dane: gnutls30-dane gnutls30-dane(x86-32) libgnutls-dane.so.0 libgnutls-dane.so.0(DANE_0_0) gnutls30-devel: gnutls30-devel gnutls30-devel(x86-32) Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1366687 Buildroot used: fedora-24-i386 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
(In reply to Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos from comment #8) > The error is only on x86. This can be worked-around by specifying: > --disable-hardware-acceleration on the x86 arch. I'll try to find out the > culprit, but other than this issue everything is ok. This is strange. I'm not getting this error in mock build nor in COPR. I have rpmlint from F24. We also have the package installed on 64-bit CentOS 6 node in Jenkins and we build Knot DNS against the library without a problem. Could it be a false positive? Thank you very much for the review! I've created the package request and added you as a co-maintainer. I hope you don't mind. You can always opt-out. :-)
(In reply to Jan Včelák from comment #10) > (In reply to Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos from comment #8) > > The error is only on x86. This can be worked-around by specifying: > > --disable-hardware-acceleration on the x86 arch. I'll try to find out the > > culprit, but other than this issue everything is ok. > > This is strange. I'm not getting this error in mock build nor in COPR. I see it only in x86 (not x86-64).
(In reply to Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos from comment #11) > I see it only in x86 (not x86-64). My fault. You are right. I will disable HW acceleration on %{ix86} then. Btw error appears even on Fedora: % rpmlint ./gnutls-3.5.3-1.fc26.i686.rpm gnutls.i686: E: shlib-with-non-pic-code /usr/lib/libgnutls.so.30.9.0 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
I've also replaced the patches with the upstream ones. Thanks for fixing these issues so fast.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/gnutls30
Shouldn't not contain the devel branch? This is an el6-only package.
It's mandatory, if it's el6-only, EOL the master branch.
Thank you for the review, Nikos! :-)