Bug 1519747 - Review request: libdigidocpp - Library offers creating, signing and verification of digitally signed documents, according to XAdES and XML-DSIG standards
Summary: Review request: libdigidocpp - Library offers creating, signing and verificat...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Robert-André Mauchin 🐧
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 1518957 1519751
Blocks: 1519749
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2017-12-01 11:20 UTC by Germano Massullo
Modified: 2018-01-31 23:20 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2018-01-31 23:20:02 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:
zebob.m: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Germano Massullo 2017-12-01 11:20:35 UTC
Unretiring qesteidutil package
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libdigidocpp

Description
Libdigidocpp library offers creating, signing and verification of digitally
signed documents, according to XAdES and XML-DSIG standards. Documentation
http://open-eid.github.io/libdigidocpp

https://germano.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/libdigidocpp/libdigidocpp.spec

https://germano.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/libdigidocpp/libdigidocpp-3.13.2-1.fc27.src.rpm

Comment 1 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2017-12-03 16:07:22 UTC
 - make %{?_smp_mflags} → %make_build

 - make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} → %make_install

 - Not needed:

%clean
rm -rf %{buildroot}

 - The license files should be included with the %license macro, not %doc:

%files
%doc AUTHORS README.md CONTRIBUTING.md RELEASE-NOTES.md
%license COPYING LICENSE.LGPL

   And:

%files devel
%doc AUTHORS README.md CONTRIBUTING.md RELEASE-NOTES.md

%files doc
%doc AUTHORS README.md CONTRIBUTING.md RELEASE-NOTES.md doc/*

 - Remove the empty %check

 - Use pkgconfig for BR when you can:

BuildRequires:  cmake
BuildRequires:  pkgconfig(openssl)
BuildRequires:  xml-security-c-devel
BuildRequires:  xsd
BuildRequires:  pkgconfig(minizip)
# Provide xxd
BuildRequires:  vim-common

 - Both Requires for the -devel -doc subpackages should include the arch with %{?_isa}:

Requires:       %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}

 - libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp/AUTHORS

You need to convert this file to UTF-8. (See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Convert_encoding_to_UTF-8)

 - libdigidocpp.x86_64: E: summary-too-long C Library offers creating, signing and verification of digitally signed documents, according to XAdES and XML-DSIG standards

→ The "Summary:" must not exceed 80 characters.

Comment 2 Germano Massullo 2017-12-09 23:54:00 UTC
Concerning
>  - make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} → %make_install
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Why_the_.25makeinstall_macro_should_not_be_used

Comment 3 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2017-12-10 00:34:06 UTC
%makeinstall should not be used, %make_install is good.

Comment 4 Juha Tuomala 2017-12-10 13:40:15 UTC
Germano, stop adding me to your reports and stop sending me emails, you have shown that you don't listen other's opinions and you're unable to work together with this, I'm not going to waste my time with you.

Comment 5 Germano Massullo 2017-12-10 15:31:08 UTC
(In reply to Juha Tuomala from comment #4)
> you have shown that you don't listen other's opinions and you're unable to work
> together with this

Your very personal opinion

Comment 6 Germano Massullo 2017-12-10 16:34:37 UTC
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1)
>  - make %{?_smp_mflags} → %make_build
> 
>  - make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} → %make_install
> 
>  - Not needed:
> 
> %clean
> rm -rf %{buildroot}
> 
>  - The license files should be included with the %license macro, not %doc:
> 
> %files
> %doc AUTHORS README.md CONTRIBUTING.md RELEASE-NOTES.md
> %license COPYING LICENSE.LGPL
> 
>    And:
> 
> %files devel
> %doc AUTHORS README.md CONTRIBUTING.md RELEASE-NOTES.md
> 
> %files doc
> %doc AUTHORS README.md CONTRIBUTING.md RELEASE-NOTES.md doc/*
> 
>  - Remove the empty %check
> 
>  - Use pkgconfig for BR when you can:
> 
> BuildRequires:  cmake
> BuildRequires:  pkgconfig(openssl)
> BuildRequires:  xml-security-c-devel
> BuildRequires:  xsd
> BuildRequires:  pkgconfig(minizip)
> # Provide xxd
> BuildRequires:  vim-common
> 
>  - Both Requires for the -devel -doc subpackages should include the arch
> with %{?_isa}:
> 
> Requires:       %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}

Done

>  - libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp/AUTHORS
> 
> You need to convert this file to UTF-8. (See
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Convert_encoding_to_UTF-8)

Is there a way to convert this with an RPM macro? I would be better than patching the file

> 
>  - libdigidocpp.x86_64: E: summary-too-long C Library offers creating,
> signing and verification of digitally signed documents, according to XAdES
> and XML-DSIG standards
> 
> → The "Summary:" must not exceed 80 characters.

Done

https://germano.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/libdigidocpp/libdigidocpp.spec

https://germano.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/libdigidocpp/libdigidocpp-3.13.2-1.fc27.src.rpm

Comment 7 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2017-12-10 16:50:47 UTC
>Is there a way to convert this with an RPM macro? I would be better than patching the file

None that I am aware of, iconv is the wày to go.

Comment 9 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2017-12-11 17:47:36 UTC
 - Why do you use a patch instead of using iconv in %prep?

%prep
%setup -q

iconv --from=ISO-8859-1 --to=UTF-8 AUTHORS > AUTHORS.new && \
touch -r AUTHORS AUTHORS.new && \
mv AUTHORS.new AUTHORS

 - Escape the macros in your changelog entry by doubling the %

 - As mentioned before, COPYING should be included with %license, not %doc

 - Still have utf-8 errors for this 3 files:

libdigidocpp-doc.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp-doc/AUTHORS
libdigidocpp-doc.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp-doc/COPYING
libdigidocpp-doc.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp-doc/sample_files.zip

   Patching doesn't change encoding, see first point.



Package Review
==============

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


Issues:
=======
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
  Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/libdigidocpp
  See:
  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names


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

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD (3 clause)",
     "zlib/libpng", "*No copyright* Ms-RL", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "*No
     copyright* LGPL (v2.1 or later)". 199 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/bob/packaging/review/libdigidocpp/review-
     libdigidocpp/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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 81920 bytes in 10 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]: 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]: %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 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:
[-]: 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
     libdigidocpp-debuginfo , libdigidocpp-debugsource
[?]: Package functions as described.
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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: libdigidocpp-3.13.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          libdigidocpp-devel-3.13.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          libdigidocpp-doc-3.13.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          libdigidocpp-debuginfo-3.13.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          libdigidocpp-debugsource-3.13.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          libdigidocpp-3.13.2-1.fc28.src.rpm
libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/878252.p12
libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/OpenDocument_dsig.xsd
libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/OpenDocument_manifest.xsd
libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/XAdES01903v132-201601-relaxed.xsd
libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/XAdES01903v132-201601.xsd
libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/XAdES01903v141-201601.xsd
libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/conf.xsd
libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/en_31916201v010101.xsd
libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/ts_119612v020101_additionaltypes_xsd.xsd
libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/ts_119612v020101_sie_xsd.xsd
libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/ts_119612v020201_201601xsd.xsd
libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/xml.xsd
libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/xmldsig-core-schema.xsd
libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp/AUTHORS
libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp/COPYING
libdigidocpp-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
libdigidocpp-devel.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp-devel/AUTHORS
libdigidocpp-devel.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp-devel/COPYING
libdigidocpp-doc.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp-doc/AUTHORS
libdigidocpp-doc.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp-doc/COPYING
libdigidocpp-doc.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp-doc/sample_files.zip
libdigidocpp-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libdigidocpp.src:99: W: macro-in-%changelog %make_build
libdigidocpp.src:100: W: macro-in-%changelog %{buildroot}
libdigidocpp.src:100: W: macro-in-%changelog %make_install
libdigidocpp.src:101: W: macro-in-%changelog %clean
libdigidocpp.src:101: W: macro-in-%changelog %{buildroot}
libdigidocpp.src:102: W: macro-in-%changelog %license
libdigidocpp.src:102: W: macro-in-%changelog %doc
libdigidocpp.src:103: W: macro-in-%changelog %{name}
libdigidocpp.src:103: W: macro-in-%changelog %{version}
libdigidocpp.src:103: W: macro-in-%changelog %{release}
libdigidocpp.src:103: W: macro-in-%changelog %{name}
libdigidocpp.src:103: W: macro-in-%changelog %{version}
libdigidocpp.src:103: W: macro-in-%changelog %{release}
libdigidocpp.src:10: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 10)
6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 36 warnings.

Comment 10 Germano Massullo 2017-12-11 19:30:31 UTC
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #9)
>  - Why do you use a patch instead of using iconv in %prep?

Because I experienced  technical problems, but I will try your solution

> libdigidocpp-doc.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8
> /usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp-doc/sample_files.zip

I want to unzip such file and make a separate doc subpackage

Comment 12 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2018-01-06 23:37:55 UTC
Seems good to me, package approved.

Comment 13 Juha Tuomala 2018-01-30 10:31:06 UTC
Germono, you approached me with emails asking for help but acted against me what we wrote in emails. This software is all about juridical trust and I don't trust you.

So I repeat myself: I don't want to have nothing to do with this or you. Remove me from these packages, including co-maintainership, I cannot do it myself because lack of rights.

Comment 14 Germano Massullo 2018-01-30 11:05:29 UTC
You can remove yourself from package maintainership, if you don't manage to do it, ask Fedora admins in #fedora-admin


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