Spec URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/libre.spec SRPM URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/libre-0.6.1-1.src.rpm Description: Libre is a portable and generic library for real-time communications with async IO support and a complete SIP stack with support for SDP, RTP/RTCP, STUN/TURN/ICE, BFCP and DNS Client. Fedora Account System Username: robert
Obsoletes: libre0 < %{version}-%{release} - Obsolete must be a fixed %{version}-%{release}, generally one release above the last version of the obsoleted package available. - Add a comment above the patch explaining why it is needed. - Not needed anymore: %ldconfig_scriptlets - I'm not sure if SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list should be patched to respect Fedora's ciphers. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/CryptoPolicies/ 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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "Public domain", "zlib/libpng license". 349 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/libre/review-libre/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 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 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). [?]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: libre-0.6.1-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm libre-devel-0.6.1-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm libre-debuginfo-0.6.1-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm libre-debugsource-0.6.1-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm libre-0.6.1-1.fc33.src.rpm libre.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US async -> sync, a sync libre.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/lib64/libre.so.0 SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list libre-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libre.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US async -> sync, a sync 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
> %ldconfig_scriptlets Required to cover EPEL 7, I'll try to address the rest and then provide an updated package.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1) > Obsoletes: libre0 < %{version}-%{release} > > - Obsolete must be a fixed %{version}-%{release}, generally one release > above the last version of the obsoleted package available. Corrected. > - Add a comment above the patch explaining why it is needed. Added. > - Not needed anymore: > > %ldconfig_scriptlets That's only partially true: EPEL 7 still needs it, Fedora and EPEL 8 don't. I'm targetting EPEL 7, too. > - I'm not sure if SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list should be patched to respect > Fedora's ciphers. See > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/CryptoPolicies/ The OpenSSL SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list() function is used in the "re" tls_set_ciphers() function (in src/tls/openssl/tls.c), which itself is not being used in the whole "re" library. When looking to tls_set_ciphers() more closely, it seems to be a high-level wrapper around SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list() only, thus from my understanding only applications (!) using "re" tls_set_ciphers() should be patched. Because if I am patching the library itself, any application based on "re" won't ever be able to override the system ciphers for specific purposes (which is not unlikely for SIP). Spec URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/libre.spec SRPM URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/libre-0.6.1-2.src.rpm
LGTM, package approved.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libre
FEDORA-2020-d6abc46c6c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d6abc46c6c
FEDORA-2020-e629bf7724 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e629bf7724
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-06383a37ab has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-06383a37ab
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-5da56dce16 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-5da56dce16
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-06383a37ab has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-06383a37ab See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-5da56dce16 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-5da56dce16 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-e629bf7724 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-e629bf7724 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e629bf7724 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-d6abc46c6c 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-d6abc46c6c \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d6abc46c6c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-d6abc46c6c has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-e629bf7724 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-06383a37ab has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-5da56dce16 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.