Fedora Account System Username: kochstefan ### libusbauth-configparser ### Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/kochstefan/usbauth-all/fedora-27-x86_64/00726578-libusbauth-configparser/libusbauth-configparser.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/kochstefan/usbauth-all/fedora-27-x86_64/00726578-libusbauth-configparser/libusbauth-configparser-1.0-1.fc27.src.rpm Description: The library is used to read the usbauth config file into data structures and is used by usbauth and YaST. ####################### Hi I want to add the packages libusbauth-configparser, usbauth, usbauth-notifier to Fedora. I need a review and a sponsor for packaging these packages. The usbauth packages already part of openSUSE Tumbleweed, Debian Sid and Ubuntu 18.04 (pre). This work was initially created for SUSE in 2015. Part of it was the USB interface authorization for the Linux kernel. It's contained in Linux since kernel version 4.4. There are the following packages libusbauth-configparser, usbauth, usbauth-notifier. GIT Repository: https://github.com/kochstefan/usbauth-all.git NOTICE aboud usbguard and usbauth: The usbguard project provides an USB firewall, too. It is already packaged within debian. The usbguard development was supported by RedHat and usbauth was supported by SUSE. Historical, usbguard was published while the working on usbauth has already been started. The main difference is that usbguard works with USB devices and usbauth works with USB interfaces. usbauth could allow/deny usb interfaces using the new usb interface authorization mechanism that is part of linux 4.4 and above. See also: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/log/?h=v4.4.94&qt=grep&q=interface+auth Examples: * allow a storage functionality of a USB device and deny USB Ethernet of the same device * allow audio/video functionality of an USB TV card and deny using the remote control functionality * allow USB printing/scanning and deny USB storage usage of a multifunction printer (BTW: the interface mechanism supports denying user space triggered actions (using USB claiming) like scanning) usbguard could allow/deny USB devices using the usb device authorization mechanism of the Linux kernel. It allows to denying a whole device if one interface of it is considered as bad (usbauth supports this, too) usbguard allows creating actions that is not supported by usbauth. If you can understand German language you could read a detailed description: https://epub.uni-bayreuth.de/3048/1/koch2017sicherheitsaspekte.pdf Thank you Stefan Koch
A first review was done by Robert-André Mauchin with Bug 1553496 (complete usbauth suite review request). I have changed the spec files now. There are new build available on COPR. See Bugs: 1554020 libusbauth-configparser review request 1554021 usbauth review request 1554022 usbauth-notifier review request (these bugs will replace bug 1553496)
- Please space out your changelog entry, they are difficult to read - I would rather have you not mix Suse stuff with Fedora stuff. - In order to avoid unintintional soname bump, we now forbid to glob the major soname version. Please be more specific instead: %_libdir/*lib*.so.1* - The license must be installed with %license, not %doc %doc README %license COPYING - Not needed in Fedora: %defattr(-,root,root) - devel must Requires: libusbauth-configparser%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} not libusbauth-configparser%{?suse_version:1} - Can be removed if you have no plan to support F27 or EPEL: %ldconfig_post %ldconfig_postun - Add a BR for gcc - Your %changelog entry must contain the release-version: * Sat Mar 10 2018 stefan.koch10 - 1.0-1 - Use %autosetup or %setup -q to make the setup quiet: libusbauth-configparser.src:72: W: setup-not-quiet Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B - 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. Note: License file COPYING is not marked as %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ===== 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 not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [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: "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1)", "Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/libusbauth-configparser /review-libusbauth-configparser/licensecheck.txt [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. [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: 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 61440 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: 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: [-]: Buildroot is not present Note: Invalid buildroot found: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-build See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag [-]: 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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libusbauth-configparser-devel , libusbauth-configparser-debuginfo , libusbauth-configparser-debugsource [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [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]: 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]: 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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libusbauth-configparser-1.0-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm libusbauth-configparser-devel-1.0-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm libusbauth-configparser-debuginfo-1.0-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm libusbauth-configparser-debugsource-1.0-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm libusbauth-configparser-1.0-1.fc30.src.rpm libusbauth-configparser.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US usbauth -> Bauhaus libusbauth-configparser.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog tefan.koch10 ['1.0-1.fc30', '1.0-1'] libusbauth-configparser-devel.x86_64: W: no-version-dependency-on libusbauth-configparser/libusbauth-configparser-libs/liblibusbauth-configparser 1.0 libusbauth-configparser.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US usbauth -> Bauhaus libusbauth-configparser.src:72: W: setup-not-quiet libusbauth-configparser.src: W: invalid-url Source0: libusbauth-configparser-1.0.tar.bz2 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
I have added an new revised build at: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/kochstefan/usbauth-all/build/849718 Would nice to support EPEL, too.
%files -n %{name} -n %{name} is not needed here -Man pages must not be added to %doc: %_mandir/*/* Please fix these issues before import. Package approved.
I have fixed the issues within https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/kochstefan/usbauth-all/build/893246
Refreshing flag
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libusbauth-configparser
Package is in repos