Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frankcrawford/hash-slinger/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02841725-hash-slinger/hash-slinger.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frankcrawford/hash-slinger/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02841725-hash-slinger/hash-slinger-3.1-1.fc36.src.rpm Description: This package contains various tools to generate special DNS records: sshfp Generate RFC-4255 SSHFP DNS records from known_hosts files or ssh-keyscan tlsa Generate RFC-6698 TLSA DNS records via TLS openpgpkey Generate draft-ietf-dane-openpgpkey DNS records from OpenPGP keyrings ipseckey Generate RFC-4025 IPSECKEY DNS records on Libreswan IPsec servers This package has incorporated the old 'sshfp' and 'swede' commands/packages Fedora Account System Username: frankcrawford This is a review request to re-review a retired package.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/hash-slinger See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== 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", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/fedora/rawhide/2007908-hash-slinger/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 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 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). [?]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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: hash-slinger-3.1-1.fc36.noarch.rpm hash-slinger-3.1-1.fc36.src.rpm hash-slinger.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US keyscan -> key scan, key-scan, keys can hash-slinger.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ietf -> diet hash-slinger.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dane -> Dane, sane, dame hash-slinger.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US keyrings -> key rings, key-rings, keybindings hash-slinger.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sshfp -> ssh hash-slinger.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US keyscan -> key scan, key-scan, keys can hash-slinger.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tlsa -> Elsa, LSAT hash-slinger.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US openpgpkey -> eyeopening hash-slinger.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ietf -> diet hash-slinger.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dane -> Dane, sane, dame hash-slinger.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US keyrings -> key rings, key-rings, keybindings hash-slinger.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ipseckey -> eclipse 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/letoams/hash-slinger/archive/3.1/hash-slinger-3.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2f0de62d561e585747732e44ce9ea5fcef93c75c95d66b684bd13b4e70374df6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2f0de62d561e585747732e44ce9ea5fcef93c75c95d66b684bd13b4e70374df6 Requires -------- hash-slinger (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 openssh-clients python3 python3-dns python3-gnupg python3-m2crypto python3-unbound Provides -------- hash-slinger: hash-slinger sshfp Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2007908 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Ocaml, C/C++, R, Java, fonts, Perl, PHP, Haskell, SugarActivity, Python Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
I have not found any serious issues. I would reuse %{url} in Source:, update spec to use %autosetup, %make_build and %make_install. But that would be only should level anyway. Nothing blocking review. Giving review pass.
Thanks for that. I'll get it reactivated and then clean up the spec file a bit.
Created unretire ticket https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10521
FEDORA-2022-9b9fb929ea has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-9b9fb929ea
FEDORA-2022-6b8764eca9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-6b8764eca9
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-bf39e31f00 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-bf39e31f00
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-51672f81e3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-51672f81e3
FEDORA-2022-9b9fb929ea 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-2022-9b9fb929ea \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-9b9fb929ea See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-6b8764eca9 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-2022-6b8764eca9 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-6b8764eca9 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-bf39e31f00 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-2022-bf39e31f00 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-51672f81e3 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-51672f81e3 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-6b8764eca9 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-9b9fb929ea has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-51672f81e3 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-bf39e31f00 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.