Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mzavalavz/tpm2-tss-engine/fedora-31-x86_64/01112689-tpm2-tss-engine/tpm2-tss-engine.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mzavalavz/tpm2-tss-engine/fedora-31-x86_64/01112689-tpm2-tss-engine/tpm2-tss-engine-1.0.1-1.fc31.src.rpm Description: tpm2-tss-engine is an engine implementation for OpenSSL that uses tpm2-tss software stack. It uses the Enhanced System API (ESAPI) interface of the TSS 2.0 for downwards communication. It supports RSA decryption and signatures as well as ECDSA signatures. Fedora Account System Username: mzavalavz Koji build URL: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=39085608
- Not needed unlesse EPEL: %ldconfig_scriptlets - Capitalize the Summary and remove the dot at the end Summary: Utility binary for openssl using tpm2-tss software stack - Split the description to stay below 80 characters per line: tpm2-tss-engine-devel.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C This package contains headers and libraries for building apps applications against - Glob the man pages extension as the compression may change in the future: %{_mandir}/man3/tpm2tss_*.3.* %{_mandir}/man1/tpm2tss-*.1.* - We don't package static libraries and libtool archives: %{_libdir}/engines-1.1/libtpm2tss.la %{_libdir}/engines-1.1/libtpm2tss.a Remove these files in %install - Missing isa: Requires: %{name}%{_isa} = %{version}-%{release} Also you need to find a sponsor as you are not member of the packager group yet. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) Note: tpm2-tss-engine-devel : /usr/lib64/engines-1.1/libtpm2tss.la See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries - Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: tpm2-tss-engine-devel. Does not provide -static: tpm2-tss-engine-devel. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [!]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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]: 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", "*No copyright* BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "Expat License", "FSF All Permissive License", "GPL (v3 or later)", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU General Public License (v2)", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention)", "BSD (unspecified)", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License". 44 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/tpm2-tss-engine/review-tpm2-tss- engine/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. [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 20480 bytes in 2 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 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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in tpm2-tss-engine-devel , tpm2-tss-engine-utilities [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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]: 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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: tpm2-tss-engine-1.0.1-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm tpm2-tss-engine-debuginfo-1.0.1-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm tpm2-tss-engine-debugsource-1.0.1-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm tpm2-tss-engine-devel-1.0.1-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm tpm2-tss-engine-utilities-1.0.1-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm tpm2-tss-engine-1.0.1-1.fc32.src.rpm tpm2-tss-engine-devel.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C This package contains headers and libraries for building apps applications against tpm2-tss-engine-devel.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib64/engines-1.1/tpm2tss.so libtpm2tss.so tpm2-tss-engine-utilities.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) openssl -> slope tpm2-tss-engine-utilities.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C utility binary for openssl using tpm2-tss software stack. tpm2-tss-engine-utilities.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C utility binary for openssl using tpm2-tss software stack. tpm2-tss-engine-utilities.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US openssl -> slope tpm2-tss-engine-utilities.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C This package contains the binary of the engine implementation for openssl that uses the tpm2-tss software stack 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings.
Thanks for the review, i'll work on it!
I've made the changes to the issues pointed up in the review, please let me know if a i missed something Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mzavalavz/tpm2-tss-engine/fedora-31-x86_64/01138511-tpm2-tss-engine/tpm2-tss-engine.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mzavalavz/tpm2-tss-engine/fedora-31-x86_64/01138511-tpm2-tss-engine/tpm2-tss-engine-1.0.1-1.fc31.src.rpm KOJI BUILD: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=40117272
LGTM, package is approve. You still need to find a sponsor: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #4) > LGTM, package is approve. You still need to find a sponsor: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group I've sponsored Mathias, so he's good to go.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/tpm2-tss-engine
I successfully tested this package today on Fedora IoT. But there is a discrepancy with the docs provided by the repository in https://github.com/tpm2-software/tpm2-tss-engine This example does not work: openssl engine -t -c tpm2tss Because the engine provided by the rpm package is named "libtpm2tss". So you have to change it to this: openssl engine -t -c libtpm2tss I am not sure if this is expected or not, but at least I was able to create a CSR following this example https://gist.github.com/dnoliver/04364e72d8b81368f72ad4e6896f688d/#file-enrollment-sh-L121
> But there is a discrepancy with the docs provided by the repository in > https://github.com/tpm2-software/tpm2-tss-engine An issue should probably be reported to the upstream git repo if the discrepancy is in that repo.