Spec URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/libretls.spec SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/libretls-3.3.1-1.src.rpm Description: LibreTLS is a port of libtls from LibreSSL to OpenSSL. OpenBSD's libtls is a new TLS library, designed to make it easier to write foolproof applications. Fedora Account System Username: robert
Spec URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/libretls.spec SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/libretls-3.3.1p1-1.src.rpm
- Do you really need the static library? There are generally not packaged in Fedora. Package 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]: 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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "[generated file]", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "ISC License", "Expat License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "Expat License", "FSF All Permissive License", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU General Public License, Version 2", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention)". 45 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/libretls/review- libretls/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. [-]: 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]: 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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: libretls-static. [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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libretls-static [?]: 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]: 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: libretls-3.3.1p1-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm libretls-devel-3.3.1p1-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm libretls-static-3.3.1p1-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm libretls-debuginfo-3.3.1p1-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm libretls-debugsource-3.3.1p1-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm libretls-3.3.1p1-1.fc35.src.rpm libretls.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libtls -> libels libretls.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libtls -> libels libretls.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libtls.so.20.0.1 _exit.5 libretls.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/lib64/libtls.so.20.0.1 SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list libretls-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libtls -> libels libretls-static.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libtls -> libels libretls-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation libretls.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libtls -> libels libretls.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libtls -> libels 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #2) > - Do you really need the static library? There are generally not packaged in Fedora. That's a good question: I packaged it, because I treat libretls on the same level like the openssl package (who ever needs to link statically against openssl, might need to do the same with libretls). The intention is to provide the static library for special use-cases out there (similar like at the openssl package), not for other Fedora packagers.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libretls
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-347dc7561b has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-347dc7561b
FEDORA-2021-1a22a7681e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-1a22a7681e
FEDORA-2021-00d86aa2de has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-00d86aa2de
FEDORA-2021-7179781469 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-7179781469
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-11c0280666 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-11c0280666
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-11c0280666 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-2021-11c0280666 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-00d86aa2de has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-00d86aa2de \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-00d86aa2de See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-7179781469 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-7179781469 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-7179781469 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-347dc7561b 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-2021-347dc7561b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-1a22a7681e has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-1a22a7681e \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-1a22a7681e See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-1a22a7681e has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-00d86aa2de has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-7179781469 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-11c0280666 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-2021-347dc7561b has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.