Spec URL: http://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/rsakeyfind.spec SRPM URL: http://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/rsakeyfind-1.0-1.fc31.src.rpm Description: The rsakeyfind tool locates BER-encoded RSA private and public keys in captured memory images. It can either try to locate keys based on a provided hex-dump of a modulus of a known public key, or based on fixed pattern in BER-encoded RSA version field.
Mock build issue: + /usr/bin/make -O -j4 V=1 VERBOSE=1 -j4 g++ -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong -grecord-gcc-switches -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1 -m64 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection -fcf-protection -Wall -O4 -c -o rsakeyfind.o rsakeyfind.cpp make: g++: Command not found
Could you please fix the build requirements to get it going?
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the submitter to proceed with the review. If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take this ticket. Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket reviewer failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we reset the status and the assignee of this ticket.
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/xambroz/rpms-infosec/master/rsakeyfind/rsakeyfind.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/rebus/infosec/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/03598312-rsakeyfind/rsakeyfind-1.0-1.fc37.src.rpm Builds currently for all active branches - https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/rebus/infosec/build/3598312/
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/xambroz/rpms-infosec/master/rsakeyfind/rsakeyfind.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/rebus/infosec/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/03598328-rsakeyfind/rsakeyfind-1.0-2.fc37.src.rpm Bump the ambiguous release number to 2 Builds currently for all active branches - https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/rebus/infosec/build/3598328/
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: "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/pihhan/fedora/review/1808895-rsakeyfind/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. [x]: 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). [?]: 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. [x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: Source 3 is not passed to gpgverify. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://citpsite.s3.amazonaws.com/memory-content/src/rsakeyfind-1.0.tar.gz.asc : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5e9071da164d42736999cf2bdf89c75c2a14c35979366c947afaf22c2e3347a5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5e9071da164d42736999cf2bdf89c75c2a14c35979366c947afaf22c2e3347a5 https://citpsite.s3.amazonaws.com/memory-content/src/rsakeyfind-1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d897317636fc95548ea8c56d7d5585418abcb06bc68810dafd6944ea91965607 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d897317636fc95548ea8c56d7d5585418abcb06bc68810dafd6944ea91965607 Requires -------- rsakeyfind (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) rsakeyfind-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rsakeyfind-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- rsakeyfind: rsakeyfind rsakeyfind(x86-64) rsakeyfind-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) rsakeyfind-debuginfo rsakeyfind-debuginfo(x86-64) rsakeyfind-debugsource: rsakeyfind-debugsource rsakeyfind-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1808895 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: R, Python, Perl, Haskell, Ocaml, PHP, Java, fonts, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Hello Petr, please would you be able to re-approve the package - unfortunately I have missed that 60 day grace period and the automation of the package creation would not allow to create a package. Package still builds well in a rawhide and rpmlint is also clean. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=93702768 Thank you Michal Ambroz
I still see fedora-review+ flag set. Not sure what I can do again. Have you tried following command? fedpkg request-repo rr_rsakeyfind 1808895 What were the result? Can you link the ticket created? Are you sure the review flag is what is missing? I think step 6 of [1] is finished. I am not sure what else I can provide. I could unset the flag and set it again, but somehow I doubt that should be necessary. [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/New_Package_Process_for_Existing_Contributors/
Hello Petre, >Have you tried following command? yes I did ... it complains about the 60 days period. $ fedpkg request-repo rsakeyfind 1808895 Could not execute request_repo: The Bugzilla bug's review was approved over 60 days ago If you do not mind I will try to remove the fedora-review+ flag, and if you could set it back to + I guess that would do the trick. Thank you Michal Ambroz
Okay, here we go again, lets put it back.
Thank you very much, it worked. Package requested https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/49157
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rsakeyfind