Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/bitcoin-selinux.spec SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/bitcoin-selinux-0-1.20210310gitc539073.fc33.src.rpm Description: Bitcoin Core SELinux policy Fedora Account System Username: slaanesh
Packaged as per guidelines here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SELinux/IndependentPolicy The policy tarball/repositories does not have any tags, but the SPEC file supports them. As soon as the policy is in a confirmed good state I will start tagging. Spin off from this review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731 @Daniel Walsh, could you have a look?
Link to the git repository of the policy for quick looks: https://github.com/scaronni/bitcoin-selinux
Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/bitcoin-selinux.spec SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/bitcoin-selinux-0-2.20210310gitc539073.fc33.src.rpm * Fri Mar 12 2021 Simone Caronni <negativo17> - 0-2.20210310gitc539073 - Update postuninstall scriptlet with correct ports.
Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/bitcoin-selinux.spec SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/bitcoin-selinux-0-4.20210312giteaa9a04.fc33.src.rpm * Fri Mar 12 2021 Simone Caronni <negativo17> - 0-4.20210312giteaa9a04 - Updated policy.
Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/bitcoin-selinux.spec SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/bitcoin-selinux-0-5.fc33.src.rpm * Sun Mar 14 2021 Simone Caronni <negativo17> - 0-5 - Use forge macros from packaging guidelines.
- The package LGTM but I'm not a SELinux specialist. - Please don'tforget the release info in your last changelog: * Sun Mar 14 2021 Simone Caronni <negativo17> - 0-5.20210317giteaa9a04 Package should be approved, but I'm waiting on DWalsh inputon the SELinux policies. Needinfo me then and on the main bitcoin package. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== 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/bob/packaging/review/bitcoin- selinux/review-bitcoin-selinux/licensecheck.txt [-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/selinux/packages/targeted, /var/lib/selinux/targeted, /var/lib/selinux/targeted/active/modules/200 [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. [-]: 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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: bitcoin-selinux-0-5.20210317giteaa9a04.fc35.noarch.rpm bitcoin-selinux-0-5.20210317giteaa9a04.fc35.src.rpm bitcoin-selinux.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0-5 ['0-5.20210317giteaa9a04.fc35', '0-5.20210317giteaa9a04'] bitcoin-selinux.noarch: W: no-documentation bitcoin-selinux.noarch: E: non-readable /var/lib/selinux/targeted/active/modules/200/bitcoin 0 bitcoin-selinux.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%pre cp bitcoin-selinux.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%posttrans rm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #6) > - The package LGTM but I'm not a SELinux specialist. > > - Please don'tforget the release info in your last changelog: > > * Sun Mar 14 2021 Simone Caronni <negativo17> - > 0-5.20210317giteaa9a04 This is what happens if you use the forge macros, the changelog is not updated correctly with rpmdev-bumpspec. Also, in EPEL 8, due to RHEL/CentOS 8 having a too old redhat-rpm-config, in case of releases the %dist tag is completely screwed up. Maybe I will switch back to all the normal tags.
Renamed to bitcoin-core-selinux, as the main package is being renamed as bitcoin-core as part of the review. Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/bitcoin-core-selinux.spec SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/bitcoin-core-selinux-0-6.20210922giteaa9a04.fc34.src.rpm
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #6) > - The package LGTM but I'm not a SELinux specialist. Would you care to set the fedora-review flag? I've been running these policies for months now. Thanks.
Package approved. Sorry for the delay, I took a break from review due to work.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bitcoin-core-selinux