Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~cra/sedutil/sedutil.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~cra/sedutil/sedutil-1.12-1.fc27.src.rpm Description: The Drive Trust Alliance software (sedutil) is an Open Source (GPLv3) effort to make Self Encrypting Drive technology freely available to everyone. It is a combination of the two known available Open Source code bases today: msed and OpalTool. sedutil is a Self-Encrypting Drive (SED) management program and Pre-Boot Authorization (PBA) image that will allow the activation and use of self encrypting drives that comply with the Trusted Computing Group Opal 2.0 SSC. This package provides the sedutil-cli and linuxpba binaries, but not the PBA image itself. Fedora Account System Username: cra Note: This package will eventually replace/obsolete the older msed package.
Scratch builds: f27: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19389063 f26: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19388901 f25: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19388949
For replacing the msed package with sedutil, I have updated sedutil with Obsoletes, but not Provides (since the CLI command sedutil-cli isn't a directly compatible replacement of msed). This also has some rpmlint warning fixes. Spec URL: https://cra.fedorapeople.org/sedutil/sedutil.spec SRPM URL: https://cra.fedorapeople.org/sedutil/sedutil-1.12-2.fc27.src.rpm Scratch builds: f27: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19390504 f26: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19390637 f25: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19390694
Taking for package review.
There are some mixed licenses: BSD --- sedutil-1.12/Common/DtaAnnotatedDump.cpp sedutil-1.12/Common/DtaAnnotatedDump.h sedutil-1.12/Common/DtaHexDump.h GPL (v2 or later) ----------------- sedutil-1.12/Common/pbkdf2/gc-gnulib.c sedutil-1.12/Common/pbkdf2/gc-pbkdf2-sha1.c sedutil-1.12/Common/pbkdf2/gc.h sedutil-1.12/Common/pbkdf2/hmac-sha1.c sedutil-1.12/Common/pbkdf2/hmac.h sedutil-1.12/Common/pbkdf2/memxor.c sedutil-1.12/Common/pbkdf2/memxor.h sedutil-1.12/Common/pbkdf2/sha1.c sedutil-1.12/Common/pbkdf2/sha1.h sedutil-1.12/Common/pbkdf2/stdalign.h Remaining is GPLv3+ or generated. ----- Documentation about the binaries and/or options would be good. linux-pba does not accept options, and sedutil-cli almost provides a man page with: help2man --no-discard-stderr .../sedutil-cli Is linuxpba really supposed to be installed under /usr/bin ? Since it asks a password, maybe it needs CAP_SYS_BOOT capability. ----- The macros in spec comments should be changed or escaped. Most of the spec uses tabs, but ExclusiveArch and Obsolete tag lines use spaces. Just a cosmetic fix.
(In reply to Paulo Andrade from comment #4) > There are some mixed licenses: > > BSD > --- > sedutil-1.12/Common/DtaAnnotatedDump.cpp > sedutil-1.12/Common/DtaAnnotatedDump.h > sedutil-1.12/Common/DtaHexDump.h I'm working on the licensing fixes and have also filed this upstream: https://github.com/Drive-Trust-Alliance/sedutil/issues/145 > GPL (v2 or later) > ----------------- > sedutil-1.12/Common/pbkdf2/gc-gnulib.c > sedutil-1.12/Common/pbkdf2/gc-pbkdf2-sha1.c > sedutil-1.12/Common/pbkdf2/gc.h > sedutil-1.12/Common/pbkdf2/hmac-sha1.c > sedutil-1.12/Common/pbkdf2/hmac.h > sedutil-1.12/Common/pbkdf2/memxor.c > sedutil-1.12/Common/pbkdf2/memxor.h > sedutil-1.12/Common/pbkdf2/sha1.c > sedutil-1.12/Common/pbkdf2/sha1.h > sedutil-1.12/Common/pbkdf2/stdalign.h This is a copy of some files from gnulib. I'll see if I can compile against a system-wide copy, otherwise put a bundled(gnulib) provide in. > ----- > Documentation about the binaries and/or options would be > good. linux-pba does not accept options, and sedutil-cli > almost provides a man page with: > > help2man --no-discard-stderr .../sedutil-cli I'll try help2man. > Is linuxpba really supposed to be installed under > /usr/bin ? Since it asks a password, maybe it needs > CAP_SYS_BOOT capability. Perhaps not, it isn't really intended to be run by a regular user at all. It is intended to be embedded into a Pre-Boot Authorization image to be run automatically upon boot before the unencrypted disk is available. It could theoretically be used in the normal boot sequence to decrypt non-boot disks too. Would you agree to this being moved to /usr/libexec/linuxpba? > ----- > > The macros in spec comments should be changed or > escaped. > > Most of the spec uses tabs, but ExclusiveArch and > Obsolete tag lines use spaces. Just a cosmetic fix. Fixed, thanks. I'll provide a new spec/srpm after working out issues above.
Spec URL: https://cra.fedorapeople.org/sedutil/sedutil.spec SRPM URL: https://cra.fedorapeople.org/sedutil/sedutil-1.12-3.fc27.src.rpm All issues should be addressed as I stated in comment #5. > > BSD > I'm working on the licensing fixes and have also filed this upstream: > https://github.com/Drive-Trust-Alliance/sedutil/issues/145 License: tag fixed. > > GPL (v2 or later) > > sedutil-1.12/Common/pbkdf2/gc-gnulib.c > > This is a copy of some files from gnulib. I'll see if I can compile against > a system-wide copy, otherwise put a bundled(gnulib) provide in. Added Provides: bundled(gnulib). > > help2man --no-discard-stderr .../sedutil-cli I provided a manual page by starting with help2man and editing the result. > > Is linuxpba really supposed to be installed under > > /usr/bin ? Since it asks a password, maybe it needs > > CAP_SYS_BOOT capability. I moved it to /usr/libexec/linuxpba. > > The macros in spec comments should be changed or > > escaped. Fixed by removing the commented out unused macros for now. > > Most of the spec uses tabs, but ExclusiveArch and > > Obsolete tag lines use spaces. Just a cosmetic fix. Fixed, thanks.
Package is approved! 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]: 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 75 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/pcpa/1447741-sedutil/licensecheck.txt [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]: %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 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]: 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 sedutil- debuginfo [-]: 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]: 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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [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: sedutil-1.12-3.fc27.x86_64.rpm sedutil-debuginfo-1.12-3.fc27.x86_64.rpm sedutil-1.12-3.fc27.src.rpm sedutil.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cli -> cl, clii, clip sedutil.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided msed sedutil.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib sedutil.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id sedutil.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id sedutil.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US msed -> med, mused, mdse sedutil.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cli -> cl, clii, clip sedutil.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linuxpba -> Linux sedutil.src:35: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(gnulib) 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: sedutil-debuginfo-1.12-3.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 sedutil.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cli -> cl, clii, clip sedutil.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided msed sedutil.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib sedutil.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id sedutil.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Requires -------- sedutil (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libncurses.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libtinfo.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) sedutil-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- sedutil: bundled(gnulib) sedutil sedutil(x86-64) sedutil-debuginfo: sedutil-debuginfo sedutil-debuginfo(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Drive-Trust-Alliance/sedutil/archive/1.12/sedutil-1.12.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5509d4279cfb316f33730c5cb06f8162ae212c7f4d31d206642d67cc8be245c1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5509d4279cfb316f33730c5cb06f8162ae212c7f4d31d206642d67cc8be245c1
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/sedutil
sedutil-1.12-3.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-79d63f9b64
sedutil-1.12-3.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-16408468c4
sedutil-1.12-3.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-2017-16408468c4
sedutil-1.12-3.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-2017-79d63f9b64
sedutil-1.12-3.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.