Spec URL: https://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/openssl/compat-openssl10-pkcs11-helper.spec SRPM URL: https://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/openssl/compat-openssl10-pkcs11-helper-1.22-1.fc25.src.rpm Description: A library for using PKCS#11 providers Fedora Account System Username: rdieter
Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19199789
The download URL is wrong, however I guess that's a mistake in the mother package. Please fix prior to uploading. I also ignored any obsolete macros warning (see below, as it is a compat package). Giving ack. 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]: 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]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/include/pkcs11-helper-1.0(pkcs11-helper-devel) [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. [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 20480 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]: 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 %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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: [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/opensc/pkcs11-helper-1.22.tar.bz2 See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags [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-pkcs11-helper-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. [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]: 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: [-]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: compat-openssl10-pkcs11-helper-1.22-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm compat-openssl10-pkcs11-helper-devel-1.22-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm compat-openssl10-pkcs11-helper-debuginfo-1.22-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm compat-openssl10-pkcs11-helper-1.22-1.fc27.src.rpm compat-openssl10-pkcs11-helper.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id compat-openssl10-pkcs11-helper.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id compat-openssl10-pkcs11-helper-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib compat-openssl10-pkcs11-helper.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/opensc/pkcs11-helper-1.22.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 404: Not Found 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: compat-openssl10-pkcs11-helper-debuginfo-1.22-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory compat-openssl10-pkcs11-helper-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib compat-openssl10-pkcs11-helper.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id compat-openssl10-pkcs11-helper.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Requires -------- compat-openssl10-pkcs11-helper-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config compat-openssl10-devel compat-openssl10-pkcs11-helper(x86-64) libpkcs11-helper.so.100()(64bit) compat-openssl10-pkcs11-helper (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.10()(64bit) libcrypto.so.10(OPENSSL_1.0.1_EC)(64bit) libcrypto.so.10(libcrypto.so.10)(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) compat-openssl10-pkcs11-helper-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- compat-openssl10-pkcs11-helper-devel: compat-openssl10-pkcs11-helper-devel compat-openssl10-pkcs11-helper-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libpkcs11-helper-1) compat-openssl10-pkcs11-helper: compat-openssl10-pkcs11-helper compat-openssl10-pkcs11-helper(x86-64) libpkcs11-helper.so.100()(64bit) compat-openssl10-pkcs11-helper-debuginfo: compat-openssl10-pkcs11-helper-debuginfo compat-openssl10-pkcs11-helper-debuginfo(x86-64) AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: pkcs11-helper-1.22/configure.ac:267 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1445349 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 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
I'd also recommend to go lower rather than higher in the ABI soname, and you would have to use versioned symbols to prevent conflicts with programs linking to both versions of pkcs11-helper (unlikely but possible).
or instead of using the soname you can rename the library to libpkcs11-helper-compat.so.xx (same xx as before), and link libpkcs11-helper.so to that library.
Re: comment 3 lower... like 0? I'd assumed that had been used before, and didn't want to risk it. As far symbol versioning, that's only really required if the soname stays the same, which is not the case here. Re: comment 4 Requires more patching, I think the full library name is stored internally, I didn't think I could rename it without more work (and would be more fragile).
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/compat-openssl10-pkcs11-helper
(In reply to Rex Dieter from comment #5) > Re: comment 3 > > lower... like 0? I'd assumed that had been used before, and didn't want to > risk it. As far symbol versioning, that's only really required if the > soname stays the same, which is not the case here. That's not the case. Even if the soname is different the symbols can clash.
Only if a binary links both of them, and that should never happen.
(Or am I missing something?)
(In reply to Rex Dieter from comment #9) > (Or am I missing something?) I believe you are. A binary can link to both of them due to variable library dependencies. The problem may be limited in your case because very few programs link to pkcs11-helper but normally in libraries we change the versioned symbols in such cases.
I think any situation where both are linked is asking for trouble and should be avoided at all costs (I'm fairly certain versioned symbols won't help there either... *namespaced* symbols maybe).
(In reply to Rex Dieter from comment #11) > I think any situation where both are linked is asking for trouble and should > be avoided at all costs (I'm fairly certain versioned symbols won't help > there either... *namespaced* symbols maybe). I am not sure what we are discussing above, but as I mentioned it is a fairly common scenario. Yes, you can have an application linked with both the old openssl library and the new one, and it will work fine. Version symbols ensure that (and yes, versioned symbols are namespaced symbols).
I'm skeptical, but I guess I'll take your word for it. If that is true, it is even more unfortunate the compat-openssl10-devel maintainer chose to not make it parallel-installable (with openssl-devel)
compat-openssl10-pkcs11-helper-1.22-1.fc26 qca-2.1.3-6.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-ab577a520a
compat-openssl10-pkcs11-helper-1.22-1.fc26, qca-2.1.3-6.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-ab577a520a
compat-openssl10-pkcs11-helper-1.22-1.fc26, qca-2.1.3-6.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.