Spec URL: https://tkorbar.fedorapeople.org/pixiewps.spec SRPM URL: https://tkorbar.fedorapeople.org/pixiewps-1.4.2-1.fc27.src.rpm Description: Pixiewps is a tool written in C used to bruteforce offline the WPS PIN exploiting the low or non-existing entropy of some software implementations, the so-called "pixie-dust attack" discovered by Dominique Bongard in summer 2014. Fedora Account System Username: tkorbar Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=26721435
*** Bug 1409138 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
- GPL-3.0 is not a valid license shorthand. See the list https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses License: GPLv3 - Simplify Source0: Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz - Probably not needed: Requires: glibc openssl-libs tomsfastmath libtomcrypt The library dependencies will be picked up automatically. - The following could be simplified into: %autosetup -p1 %setup -q %patch0 -p1 %patch1 -p1 - Use the %{_prefix} macro: %make_install PREFIX="%{_prefix}" - Use * instead of specifying .gz as the compression might change in the future: %{_mandir}/man1/pixiewps.1.* - The description should be split to stay below 80 characters per line: %description Pixiewps is a tool written in C used to bruteforce offline the WPS PIN exploiting the low or non-existing entropy of some software implementations, the so-called "pixie-dust attack" discovered by Dominique Bongard in summer 2014. - Patch the Makefile in %prep to keep the timestamps: sed -i "s|^\tinstall -|\t\$(INSTALL) -|" Makefile The Makefile will use the $(INSTALL) variable defined by %make_install to keep the timestamps. - You haven't build tomsfastmath for Rawhide and F28 which is not good and it prevents building this package: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/tomsfastmath http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/search?type=package&match=glob&terms=tomsfastmath You should always build for Rawhide first, and then git merge into the other branches.
Thanks for reply.I'll keep these things in mind for next time. Everything solved. SRPM: https://tkorbar.fedorapeople.org/pixiewps-1.4.2-1.fc29.src.rpm SPEC: https://tkorbar.fedorapeople.org/pixiewps.spec Koji build for Rawhide. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=26810308
Package 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: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 25 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/pixiewps/review-pixiewps/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. [-]: 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. [-]: 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 20480 bytes in 1 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]: 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: [-]: 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). [?]: 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. [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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: pixiewps-1.4.2-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm pixiewps-debuginfo-1.4.2-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm pixiewps-debugsource-1.4.2-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm pixiewps-1.4.2-1.fc29.src.rpm pixiewps.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bruteforce -> brute force, brute-force, forceful pixiewps-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation pixiewps.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bruteforce -> brute force, brute-force, forceful 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pixiewps
pixiewps-1.4.2-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-4d5fb6d8c0
pixiewps-1.4.2-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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-2018-4d5fb6d8c0
pixiewps-1.4.2-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
pixiewps-1.4.2-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-0d60520447
pixiewps-1.4.2-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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-2018-0d60520447
pixiewps-1.4.2-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.