Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/golang-github-schollz-pake/golang-github-schollz-pake.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/golang-github-schollz-pake/golang-github-schollz-pake-3.0.2-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: PAKE library for generating a strong secret between parties over an insecure channel. Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/golang-github-schollz-pake-3/golang-github-schollz-pake-3.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/golang-github-schollz-pake-3/golang-github-schollz-pake-3-3.0.2-1.fc35.src.rpm Renamed to use the correct import path.
Hello David, Tests are still failing in Koji scratch build. Please see https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=80448411 Hirotaka
Looks like this is an issue specific to golang-1.18beta1, the tests pass with 1.16.12 and 1.17.5, but with 1.18beta1 (which is what's currently in rawhide) I get --- FAIL: TestSessionKeyString (0.05s) pake_test.go:68: Error Trace: pake_test.go:68 Error: Not equal: expected: []byte{0x7c, 0x20, 0x82, 0x33, 0x35, 0xe, 0x1a, 0x0, 0xb2, 0x13, 0xdb, 0xbf, 0xbd, 0x5c, 0xc9, 0xa, 0xca, 0xdb, 0xcd, 0xe8, 0x45, 0x40, 0x33, 0x1b, 0x21, 0xa5, 0x2b, 0x36, 0x94, 0x71, 0x29, 0x4a} actual : []byte{0x97, 0x9f, 0x29, 0x69, 0xe6, 0x90, 0xd2, 0x31, 0x74, 0x95, 0xd0, 0xa2, 0xfe, 0x9e, 0xd, 0x81, 0x5c, 0xd2, 0x9a, 0xe4, 0x21, 0x17, 0x0, 0xf4, 0x4d, 0x96, 0x17, 0x2e, 0xba, 0x84, 0xe2, 0x11} Diff: --- Expected +++ Actual @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ ([]uint8) (len=32) { - 00000000 7c 20 82 33 35 0e 1a 00 b2 13 db bf bd 5c c9 0a || .35........\..| - 00000010 ca db cd e8 45 40 33 1b 21 a5 2b 36 94 71 29 4a |....E@3.!.+6.q)J| + 00000000 97 9f 29 69 e6 90 d2 31 74 95 d0 a2 fe 9e 0d 81 |..)i...1t.......| + 00000010 5c d2 9a e4 21 17 00 f4 4d 96 17 2e ba 84 e2 11 |\...!...M.......| } Test: TestSessionKeyString pake_test.go:68: Error Trace: pake_test.go:68 Error: Not equal: expected: []byte{0xee, 0x76, 0xe4, 0x99, 0xe, 0xda, 0xbe, 0x44, 0x40, 0x96, 0x72, 0xf8, 0x76, 0xb5, 0x98, 0x0, 0x32, 0x92, 0xd7, 0xb9, 0xfc, 0x9b, 0xc9, 0xe5, 0x68, 0xc0, 0x5b, 0xd5, 0x3c, 0xc5, 0xa, 0x5e} actual : []byte{0x48, 0xd8, 0x2c, 0xa5, 0x39, 0x61, 0x4c, 0xbf, 0x70, 0x4, 0x39, 0xe3, 0x4f, 0x22, 0x93, 0x6, 0x0, 0x60, 0xfa, 0x85, 0x3a, 0xe3, 0x2, 0x67, 0x9b, 0xcd, 0xfc, 0xe1, 0xe2, 0x21, 0x41, 0x9e} Diff: --- Expected +++ Actual @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ ([]uint8) (len=32) { - 00000000 ee 76 e4 99 0e da be 44 40 96 72 f8 76 b5 98 00 |.v.....D@.r.v...| - 00000010 32 92 d7 b9 fc 9b c9 e5 68 c0 5b d5 3c c5 0a 5e |2.......h.[.<..^| + 00000000 48 d8 2c a5 39 61 4c bf 70 04 39 e3 4f 22 93 06 |H.,.9aL.p.9.O"..| + 00000010 00 60 fa 85 3a e3 02 67 9b cd fc e1 e2 21 41 9e |.`..:..g.....!A.| } Test: TestSessionKeyString FAIL exit status 1 FAIL github.com/schollz/pake/v3 0.066s
Adding Change owners from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/golang1.18 for feedback
I reported it to the upstream project as I was able to reproduce it without any Fedora tool involved, just by using the upstream project and the upstream 1.18beta1 release. https://github.com/schollz/pake/issues/7
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/golang-github-schollz-pake/golang-github-schollz-pake.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/golang-github-schollz-pake/golang-github-schollz-pake-3.0.3-1.fc37.src.rpm Changelog: - re-run go2rpm - update to 3.0.3 - backport go 1.18 upstream fixes
Hi, I will review this. Koji build(success): https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=83103602 Hirotaka
Hello Davide, mostly approved, but one error in rpmlint. Please see the attached. Regards, Hirotaka Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - The 'Summary:' must not exceed 80 characters. ===== 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. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [-]: %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]: 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 must own all directories that it creates. [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]: 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: [-]: 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. [x]: 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]: %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]: 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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- $ rpmlint golang-github-schollz-pake-3.0.3-1.fc37.src.rpm ============================================================ rpmlint session starts =========================================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1 golang-github-schollz-pake.src: E: summary-too-long PAKE library for generating a strong secret between parties over an insecure channel golang-github-schollz-pake.spec: W: no-%build-section ============================= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.5 s ============================ $ rpmlint golang-github-schollz-pake-devel-3.0.3-1.fc37.noarch.rpm ============================================================ rpmlint session starts =========================================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1 golang-github-schollz-pake-devel.noarch: E: summary-too-long PAKE library for generating a strong secret between parties over an insecure channel golang-github-schollz-pake-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/schollz/pake/.goipath golang-github-schollz-pake-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/schollz/pake/README.md /usr/share/doc/golang-github-schollz-pake-devel/README.md ============================= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 s ============================ Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/schollz/pake/archive/v3.0.3/pake-3.0.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 088f131e8714d248f0895858bc33f41bc7eac3a1af3b5c41c6f46cf5e870520e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 088f131e8714d248f0895858bc33f41bc7eac3a1af3b5c41c6f46cf5e870520e Requires -------- golang-github-schollz-pake-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): go-filesystem golang(github.com/tscholl2/siec) Provides -------- golang-github-schollz-pake-devel: golang(github.com/schollz/pake) golang-github-schollz-pake-devel golang-ipath(github.com/schollz/pake) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1980193 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, C/C++, R, Ocaml, Perl, Java, fonts, Python, Haskell, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/golang-github-schollz-pake/golang-github-schollz-pake.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/golang-github-schollz-pake/golang-github-schollz-pake-3.0.3-1.fc37.src.rpm Changelog: - shorten Summary
Hello, Package approved. Good job! Regards, Hirotaka Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - no issues. ===== 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. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [-]: %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]: 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 must own all directories that it creates. [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]: 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: [-]: 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. [x]: 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]: %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]: 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 all installed packages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- $ rpmlint golang-github-schollz-pake-3.0.3-1.fc37.src.rpm ============================================= rpmlint session starts ============================================= rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1 golang-github-schollz-pake.spec: W: no-%build-section ============== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s ============== $ rpmlint golang-github-schollz-pake-devel-3.0.3-1.fc37.noarch.rpm ============================================= rpmlint session starts ============================================= rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1 golang-github-schollz-pake-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/schollz/pake/.goipath golang-github-schollz-pake-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/schollz/pake/README.md /usr/share/doc/golang-github-schollz-pake-devel/README.md ============== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s ============== Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/schollz/pake/archive/v3.0.3/pake-3.0.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 088f131e8714d248f0895858bc33f41bc7eac3a1af3b5c41c6f46cf5e870520e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 088f131e8714d248f0895858bc33f41bc7eac3a1af3b5c41c6f46cf5e870520e Requires -------- golang-github-schollz-pake-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): go-filesystem golang(github.com/tscholl2/siec) Provides -------- golang-github-schollz-pake-devel: golang(github.com/schollz/pake) golang-github-schollz-pake-devel golang-ipath(github.com/schollz/pake) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1980193 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, SugarActivity, Java, Python, C/C++, PHP, fonts, Perl, R, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks! $ fedpkg request-repo golang-github-schollz-pake-3 1980193 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/42495
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-schollz-pake-3
FEDORA-2022-abdc183837 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-abdc183837
FEDORA-2022-abdc183837 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-d20766f5b2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-d20766f5b2
FEDORA-2022-550d60bc31 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-550d60bc31
FEDORA-2022-d20766f5b2 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-d20766f5b2 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-d20766f5b2 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-550d60bc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-550d60bc31 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-550d60bc31 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-550d60bc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-d20766f5b2 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.