Spec URL: ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/hpc-workspace/spec/workspace.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/hpc-workspace/srpm/workspace-0.0.20200310git-1.fc31.src.rpm Description: A **workspace** is a directory created in behalf of a user, associated with a expiration date, to prevent disks from uncontrolled filling. The project provides user and admin tools to manage those directories. Fedora Account System Username: gerd
>Version: 0.0.20200310git >Release: 1%{?dist} If upstream has not decided on a version number, you should use 0 for the version and put the date+gitinfo in the Release tag. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snapshots In ws_python3_explicitly.patch: >-#!/usr/bin/env python >+#!/usr/bin/env python3 Do not use /usr/bin/env. Always specify the interpreter explicitly. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_shebang_lines >install -m 755 contribs/ws_prepare %{buildroot}/usr/sbin/ws_prepare 1. Use %{_sbindir} here instead of "/usr/sbin". 2. Use the "-p" option to preserve the timestamp. Some non-technical nitpicks: >Summary: A tool to create scratch directories by users with an expiration date English makes it easy to create ambiguous sentences, but this one sounds like it allows users with an expiration date to create directories. I'd be worried if a user had an expiration date. ;) >%description >A **workspace** is a directory created in behalf of a user, associated with a >expiration date, to prevent disks from uncontrolled filling. Should be "_an_ expiration date".
Yesterday version 1.0.0 has been released. At the URL - ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/hpc-workspace/spec/workspace.spec is now provided the new Spec file suitable to the first release. SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/hpc-workspace/srpm/workspace-1.0.0-1.fc31.src.rpm New Description Text: A **workspace** is a directory, associated with an expiration date, created in behalf of a user, to prevent disks from uncontrolled filling. The project provides user and admin tools to manage those directories.
Upstream has released workspace version 1.1.0. At the URL - ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/hpc-workspace/spec/workspace.spec is provided the new Spec file appropriate to the version 1.1.0. (It is a Link: workspace.spec -> workspace.spec.3) new SRPM URL: - ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/hpc-workspace/srpm/workspace-1.1.0-1.fc31.src.rpm - add patch for version number - improved the source tag - updated to the new upstream version Do you see still any issues?
I've ran the package through fedora-review and there's one major issue: there are suid binaries in the package - those should be compiled using PIE. Add "%global _hardened_build 1" to the spec. >https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_pie
The URL - ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/hpc-workspace/spec/workspace.spec Link is change to provide modified spec file (workspace.spec -> workspace.spec.4) new SRPM URL: - ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/hpc-workspace/srpm/workspace-1.1.0-2.fc31.src.rpm last changelog: - add use of _hardened_build
Now I replaced the cmake command and used the %cmake macro, instead. I patched the file 'CMakeLists.txt' so that it does not include CXXFLAGS settings. Does this solve the major issue? (I could patch the file 'CMakeLists.txt' to use the compiler option -fPIC.) The Link of the URL - ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/hpc-workspace/spec/workspace.spec is changed to provide the modified spec file (workspace.spec -> workspace.spec.5). new SRPM URL: - ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/hpc-workspace/srpm/workspace-1.1.0-3.fc31.src.rpm last changelog entry: - remove the CXXFLAGS settings in CMakeLists.txt
The Link of the URL - ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/hpc-workspace/spec/workspace.spec is changed to provide the modified spec file (workspace.spec -> workspace.spec.6). new SRPM URL: - ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/hpc-workspace/srpm/workspace-1.1.0-4.fc31.src.rpm last changelog entry: - wrap description $ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/workspace-1.1.0-4.fc31.x86_64.rpm workspace.x86_64: E: no-binary workspace.x86_64: E: setuid-binary /usr/bin/ws_allocate root 4111 workspace.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/ws_allocate 4111 workspace.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/ws_allocate 4111 workspace.x86_64: E: setuid-binary /usr/bin/ws_release root 4111 workspace.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/ws_release 4111 workspace.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/ws_release 4111 workspace.x86_64: E: setuid-binary /usr/bin/ws_restore root 4111 workspace.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/ws_restore 4111 workspace.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/ws_restore 4111 workspace.x86_64: W: duplicate-executable ws_restore ['/usr/bin/ws_restore', '/usr/sbin/ws_restore'] workspace.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ws_expirer workspace.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ws_prepare workspace.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ws_validate_config 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 10 errors, 4 warnings. I think the rpmlint output could not be reduced any more.
- Add a comment above the patch explaining why it is needed - Separate your BR one per line - There are two binary named ws_restore, one in %{_bindir}, one in %{_sbindir}, wouldn't that cause issues? Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Permissions on files are set properly. Note: See rpmlint output See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_file_permissions ===== 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 (v3 or later)". 81 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/workspace/review-workspace/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. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: 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. [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 5 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]: Package uses hardened build flags if required to. Note: suid files: ws_allocate, ws_release, ws_restore [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [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]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [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. [!]: 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]: 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: workspace-1.1.0-4.fc33.x86_64.rpm workspace-debuginfo-1.1.0-4.fc33.x86_64.rpm workspace-debugsource-1.1.0-4.fc33.x86_64.rpm workspace-1.1.0-4.fc33.src.rpm workspace.x86_64: E: no-binary workspace.x86_64: E: setuid-binary /usr/bin/ws_allocate root 4111 workspace.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/ws_allocate 4111 workspace.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/ws_allocate 4111 workspace.x86_64: E: setuid-binary /usr/bin/ws_release root 4111 workspace.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/ws_release 4111 workspace.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/ws_release 4111 workspace.x86_64: E: setuid-binary /usr/bin/ws_restore root 4111 workspace.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/ws_restore 4111 workspace.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/ws_restore 4111 workspace.x86_64: W: duplicate-executable ws_restore ['/usr/bin/ws_restore', '/usr/sbin/ws_restore'] workspace.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ws_expirer workspace.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ws_prepare workspace.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ws_validate_config 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 10 errors, 4 warnings.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #8) > - Add a comment above the patch explaining why it is needed > > - Separate your BR one per line > > - There are two binary named ws_restore, one in %{_bindir}, one in > %{_sbindir}, wouldn't that cause issues? > I agree mildly. %{_bindir}/ws_restore is for users, %{_sbindir}/ws_restore is only for root to support the administrator at his daily work. May be %{_sbindir}/ws_restore could be renamed to %{_sbindir}/ws_restore_adm. The Link of the URL - ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/hpc-workspace/spec/workspace.spec is changed to provide the modified spec file (workspace.spec -> workspace.spec.7). new SRPM URL: - ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/hpc-workspace/srpm/workspace-1.1.0-5.fc31.src.rpm last changelog entry: - add a comment above the patch to explain it - separate BRs one per line
Package approved.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/workspace
I thank you both very much for the review!!
FEDORA-2020-8feba29116 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-8feba29116
FEDORA-2020-8feba29116 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-8feba29116 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-8feba29116 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-8feba29116 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.