Hi all. This is my first package and I'm seeking a sponsor. Koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=59896449 Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/vladius/efitools/fedora-33-x86_64/01885734-efitools/efitools.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/vladius/efitools/fedora-33-x86_64/01885734-efitools/efitools-1.9.2-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: This package installs a variety of tools for manipulating keys and binary signatures on UEFI secure boot platforms. The tools provide access to the keys and certificates stored in the secure variables of the UEFI firmware, usually in the NVRAM area. Fedora Account System Username: vladius
> BuildRequires: gnu-efi-devel gcc openssl openssl-devel sbsigntools perl-File-Slurp help2man Please put one dependency per line and sort alphabetically. It takes a bit more space but makes future diffs much more readable. > Requires: parted mtools util-linux coreutils As above. By the way, shouldn't it have Recommends: sbsigntools? Is it even functional without sbsigntools installed? > %install > %make_install > > rm -f %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/efitools/COPYING > rm -f %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/efitools/README Please use rm -v instead. rm -f won't fail if these files are no longer there, so you won't notice you don't need it anymore. > %files ... > %dir %{_datadir}/efitools > %dir %{_datadir}/efitools/efi > %{_datadir}/efitools/efi/* Unless you want to list every file under %{_datadir}/efitools/efi/, you should simply use: %{_datadir}/efitools
(In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #1) Thanks for feedback! I fixed occasions you mentioned above. > By the way, shouldn't it have Recommends: sbsigntools? Is it even functional without sbsigntools installed? Yeah, it works without sbsingtoosl, which is needeed only for sign .efi files. But weak dependency is great, because efitools is almosy always use to produce ESL certs for sbsigntools. https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/vladius/efitools/fedora-32-x86_64/01886828-efitools/efitools.spec
My reviews of other packages: BZ#1919349 BZ#1919347
BZ#1919639
Updated. SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/vladius/efitools/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01927732-efitools/efitools.spec SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/vladius/efitools/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01927732-efitools/efitools-1.9.2-1.fc34.src.rpm Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=60901705
SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/vladius/efitools/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01927756-efitools/efitools.spec SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/vladius/efitools/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01927756-efitools/efitools-1.9.2-1.fc34.src.rpm Koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=60904311
Please increase the release field every time you make a change and summarize the changes you made in a changelog entry. As it is, it's difficult to see what you changed quickly.
This files licensed at BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License --------------------------------- efitools-1.9.2/lib/execute.c efitools-1.9.2/lib/pecoff.c So seems need to add this to License: field.
Or lib not used during compile and install?
1. LGPG license name must be LGPLv2 instead of LGPLv2.1 2. rpmlint errors efitools.x86_64: E: call-to-mktemp /usr/bin/efi-readvar efitools.x86_64: E: call-to-mktemp /usr/bin/efi-updatevar should be reported to upstream. $ rpmlint -I call-to-mktemp call-to-mktemp: This executable calls mktemp. As advised by the manpage (mktemp(3)), this function should be avoided. Some implementations are deeply insecure, and there is a race condition between the time of check and time of use (TOCTOU). See http://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/29.html for details, and contact upstream to have this issue fixed.
License clause fixed. Upstream issue created. SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/vladius/efitools/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01928117-efitools/efitools.spec SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/vladius/efitools/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01928117-efitools/efitools-1.9.2-2.fc34.src.rpm
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/vladius/efitools/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01950549-efitools/efitools.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/vladius/efitools/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01950549-efitools/efitools-1.9.2-3.fc34.src.rpm Koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=61474997
Approved. 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]: 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: "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1 GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "[generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]". 72 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/vascom/1917128-efitools/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [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. [x]: 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: [x]: 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). [x]: 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. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: %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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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: efitools-1.9.2-3.fc34.x86_64.rpm efitools-debuginfo-1.9.2-3.fc34.x86_64.rpm efitools-debugsource-1.9.2-3.fc34.x86_64.rpm efitools-1.9.2-3.fc34.src.rpm efitools.x86_64: E: call-to-mktemp /usr/bin/efi-readvar efitools.x86_64: E: call-to-mktemp /usr/bin/efi-updatevar efitools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary efitool-mkusb efitools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary flash-var 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: efitools-debuginfo-1.9.2-3.fc34.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- efitools.x86_64: E: call-to-mktemp /usr/bin/efi-readvar efitools.x86_64: E: call-to-mktemp /usr/bin/efi-updatevar efitools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary efitool-mkusb efitools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary flash-var 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jejb/efitools.git/snapshot/efitools-1.9.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0f315b36e7d1ba74bfc97ab9f304f0a3072c47578bbe5e42594acae381f9acfe CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0f315b36e7d1ba74bfc97ab9f304f0a3072c47578bbe5e42594acae381f9acfe Requires -------- efitools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh coreutils(x86-64) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1()(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0)(64bit) mtools(x86-64) parted(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH) util-linux(x86-64) efitools-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): efitools-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- efitools: efitools efitools(x86-64) efitools-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) efitools-debuginfo efitools-debuginfo(x86-64) efitools-debugsource: efitools-debugsource efitools-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1917128 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, fonts, R, Python, PHP, Haskell, SugarActivity, Perl, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/efitools
Don't forget to close this ticket if all done.
Better to do: Resolution --- RAWHIDE Even better to link RHBZ in Bodhi when submit new package. It will close rhbz ticket automatically when package will be pushed to Stable repo.