Spec URL: https://people.redhat.com/tmraz/compat-openssl10/compat-openssl10.spec SRPM URL: https://people.redhat.com/tmraz/compat-openssl10/compat-openssl10-1.0.2i-3.fc26.src.rpm Description: The OpenSSL toolkit provides support for secure communications between machines. This version of OpenSSL package contains only the libraries and is provided for compatibility with previous releases. This package will be used during the transition of applications from 1.0 API to 1.1 API and it will be kept for third party applications for a few Fedora releases. See also: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/OpenSSL110 Fedora Account System Username: tmraz
I've updated the package to 1.0.2j version and modified the Summary. Spec URL: https://people.redhat.com/tmraz/compat-openssl10/compat-openssl10.spec SRPM URL: https://people.redhat.com/tmraz/compat-openssl10/compat-openssl10-1.0.2j-1.fc26.src.rpm
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= ===== 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. 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. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 4 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 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 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 ===== (Since this is a legacy/compat package I ignore new rules) Generic: [-]: Buildroot is not present Note: Invalid buildroot found: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-root See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag [-]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [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 compat- openssl10-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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [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]: SourceX is a working URL.
I'll remove Buildroot and %clean section.
Could you also add "Conflicts: openssl < 1:1.1.0" so that the dep solver knows it can't install openssl 1.0 and compat-openssl10 packages together (it would run into file conflicts)?
OK, will do.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/compat-openssl10
I temporarily untagged this from rawhide as it started breaking builds of other packages. When you've imported openssl 1.1 and the build has landed in rawhide, can you do "koji tag-build f26 compat-openssl10-1.0.2j-2.fc26" to put it back in please?
OK, will do. On the other hand I cannot find in koji failed task list the broken builds you mention. Can you point me to one and what is the cause?
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15983581 for example. Looks like it first installed compat-openssl10 in the build root to solve a soname based dep, and then, in a separate transaction, tried to install openssl-devel which failed, as these two can't be installed at the same time.