Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/carlwgeorge/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01036907-doh/doh.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/carlwgeorge/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01036907-doh/doh-0.1-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: A libcurl-using application that resolves a host name using DNS-over-HTTPS (DoH). This code uses POST requests unconditionally for this. Fedora Account System Username: carlwgeorge
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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [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: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/reviews/1753769-doh/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: %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 10240 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in doh [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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]: 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: doh-0.1-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm doh-debuginfo-0.1-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm doh-debugsource-0.1-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm doh-0.1-1.fc31.src.rpm doh.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) lookups -> lookup, lockups, hookups doh.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libcurl -> lib curl, lib-curl, curlicue doh.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) lookups -> lookup, lockups, hookups doh.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libcurl -> lib curl, lib-curl, curlicue 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: doh-debuginfo-0.1-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- doh-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/curl/doh <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> doh.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) lookups -> lookup, lockups, hookups doh.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libcurl -> lib curl, lib-curl, curlicue doh.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/curl/doh <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> doh-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/curl/doh <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/curl/doh/archive/doh-0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b36c4b4a27fabb508d5d3bb0fb58bd9cfadcef30d22e552bbe5c4442ae81e742 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b36c4b4a27fabb508d5d3bb0fb58bd9cfadcef30d22e552bbe5c4442ae81e742 Requires -------- doh (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcurl.so.4()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) doh-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): doh-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- doh: doh doh(x86-64) doh-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) doh-debuginfo doh-debuginfo(x86-64) doh-debugsource: doh-debugsource doh-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.2 (65d36bb) last change: 2019-04-09 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1753769 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Perl, Python, PHP, R, fonts, Java, Ocaml, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Sweet little thing. Quite simple and nice. However one issue in compilation was found. Since it does not use configure, no %configure is used. That would be fine, it is not required. What is required however, is usage of CFLAGS and LDFLAGS defined for packaging. What should be used can be checked by command: # rpm -E '%configure' | grep FLAGS 1) CFLAGS and LDFLAGS have to be configured before make. Please add %set_build_flags before %make_build 2) Current Makefile redefines CFLAGS, so it cannot reuse rpm cflags even if they were defined. Makefile should be modified to use CFLAGS configured before. In my test, this worked fine: CFLAGS := $(CFLAGS) -W -Wall -pedantic -g `curl-config --cflags` If no CFLAGS is defined, it would still work as before. When it is, it is used. Not sure if this would be supported by different make flavour, but fine for Fedora.
Thanks for the review Petr. I've sent your suggestion upstream: https://github.com/curl/doh/pull/20 New package for review: Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/carlwgeorge/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01039059-doh/doh.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/carlwgeorge/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01039059-doh/doh-0.1-2.fc32.src.rpm
Interesting software, I am looking for something that act's recursive dns server for my machine (127.0.0.1) and resolve the requests using doh.
(In reply to Itamar Reis Peixoto from comment #4) > Interesting software, > > I am looking for something that act's recursive dns server for my machine > (127.0.0.1) and resolve the requests using doh. That is unrelated to this review. If you are looking just for TLS channel, DNS over TLS is provided by getdns-stubby package. I don't know if there is something similar for DoH.
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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [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: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/reviews/1753769-doh/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 10240 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in doh [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. [-]: 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]: 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. Seems to me everything required is done. Giving review+
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/doh
FEDORA-2019-4f8527fd26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-4f8527fd26
Rawhide: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-a0a029b8d4
doh-0.1-2.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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-2019-3031dafd8b
doh-0.1-2.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-2019-4f8527fd26
doh-0.1-2.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
doh-0.1-2.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.