Spec URL: http://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/samdump2.spec SRPM URL: http://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/samdump2-3.0.0-16.fc30.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: rebus Description: This tool is designed to recover the syskey bootkey from Windows NT/2K/XP/Vista system hive and uses it to decrypt and dump password hashes from the SAM hive. This request is actually to claim back the orphaned package which was failing to build in the rawhide. I patched from legacy openssl to modern one and fixed the build dependencies.
- Not needed: rm -rf %{buildroot} - the license files must be installed with %license not %doc: %files %doc AUTHORS README %license COPYING LICENSE Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/samdump2 See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== 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]: 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: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GNU General Public License (v2)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2)". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/samdump2/review-samdump2/licensecheck.txt [!]: 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. [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [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 40960 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]: 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 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: samdump2-3.0.0-16.fc32.x86_64.rpm samdump2-debuginfo-3.0.0-16.fc32.x86_64.rpm samdump2-debugsource-3.0.0-16.fc32.x86_64.rpm samdump2-3.0.0-16.fc32.src.rpm samdump2.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) syskey -> passkey samdump2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US syskey -> passkey samdump2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bootkey -> boot key, boot-key, hotkey samdump2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decrypt -> decry pt, decry-pt, decry samdump2.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) syskey -> passkey samdump2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US syskey -> passkey samdump2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bootkey -> boot key, boot-key, hotkey samdump2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decrypt -> decry pt, decry-pt, decry 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
Hello, thank you for review - here comes the update. Spec URL: http://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/samdump2.spec SRPM URL: http://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/samdump2-3.0.0-16.fc30.src.rpm >- Package does not use a name that already exists. yes - this is the same package, same owner. Package was FTBS with contemporary openss, orphaned and marked as dead for fc31. Now it compiles again with new openssl versions so I would like to resurrect it again. Michal Ambroz
Package approved.
Thank you. I have raised ticket to unretire the package - https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9285
FEDORA-2021-7269b132b4 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-7269b132b4
FEDORA-2021-7269b132b4 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-7269b132b4 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-7269b132b4 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-7269b132b4 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.