Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/SymCrypt/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05281093-SymCrypt/SymCrypt.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/SymCrypt/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05281093-SymCrypt/SymCrypt-103.1.0-1.fc38.src.rpm Description: SymCrypt is the core cryptographic function library currently used by Windows. Fedora Account System Username: fed500
The package seems fine. I would recommend moving headers into separate subdirectory and adding -I to flags on pkgconfig file. Those files have no direct relation to symcrypt. /usr/include/resource.h file look especially generic and unrelated. But it has no conflict AFAIK. Another thing is Patch0 should be offered to upstream for inclusion. But it would have to be done a different way. Perhaps use CMake's find_library() macro and skip internal if found would be accepted. Then link to MR should be included above the patch tag. I do not think CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug should be used for a Fedora package. RelWithDebInfo would be more appropriate. We want it optimized, just not stripped. More important is not using Fedora's macros for cmake. Please use - %cmake instead of cmake .. - %cmake_build instead of make It seems upstream does not provide install target, so %cmake_install cannot be used. Add install -p parameter to keep unmodified files stable at least.
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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "BSD 3-Clause License BSD 2-Clause License GNU General Public License", "BSD 2-Clause License". 101 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/pemensik/fedora/rawhide/2162851-SymCrypt/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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 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: [!]: 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. [!]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [!]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [!]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: SymCrypt-103.1.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm SymCrypt-devel-103.1.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm SymCrypt-debuginfo-103.1.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm SymCrypt-debugsource-103.1.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm SymCrypt-103.1.0-1.fc38.src.rpm ============================================================= rpmlint session starts ============================================================= rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpljnant9k')] checks: 31, packages: 5 SymCrypt-devel.x86_64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libsymcrypt.so SymCrypt-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation SymCrypt.x86_64: W: library-not-linked-against-libc /usr/lib64/libsymcrypt.so.103.1.0 SymCrypt-devel.x86_64: W: library-not-linked-against-libc /usr/lib64/libsymcrypt.so SymCrypt-debuginfo.x86_64: E: files-duplicated-waste 1315680 ============================== 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.8 s ============================== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: SymCrypt-devel-debuginfo-103.1.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm SymCrypt-debuginfo-103.1.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm ============================================================= rpmlint session starts ============================================================= rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmppqlrbmf9')] checks: 31, packages: 2 SymCrypt-debuginfo.x86_64: E: files-duplicated-waste 1315680 ============================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.3 s ============================== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 5 SymCrypt-devel.x86_64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libsymcrypt.so SymCrypt-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation SymCrypt-devel.x86_64: W: library-not-linked-against-libc /usr/lib64/libsymcrypt.so SymCrypt.x86_64: W: library-not-linked-against-libc /usr/lib64/libsymcrypt.so.103.1.0 SymCrypt-debuginfo.x86_64: E: files-duplicated-waste 1315680 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 1.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/microsoft/SymCrypt/archive/refs/tags/v103.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4abc78a99bd3fdbdc5dd4e4a652c4193e9d52c3082a551d0ef6b4275b0e09314 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4abc78a99bd3fdbdc5dd4e4a652c4193e9d52c3082a551d0ef6b4275b0e09314 Requires -------- SymCrypt (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libjitterentropy.so.3()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) SymCrypt-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config SymCrypt(x86-64) libjitterentropy.so.3()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) SymCrypt-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): SymCrypt-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- SymCrypt: SymCrypt SymCrypt(x86-64) libsymcrypt.so.103()(64bit) libsymcrypt.so.103(VERSION_101.0)(64bit) libsymcrypt.so.103(VERSION_101.2)(64bit) libsymcrypt.so.103(VERSION_102.0)(64bit) libsymcrypt.so.103(VERSION_103.0)(64bit) libsymcrypt.so.103(VERSION_103.1)(64bit) SymCrypt-devel: SymCrypt-devel SymCrypt-devel(x86-64) libsymcrypt.so.103()(64bit) libsymcrypt.so.103(VERSION_101.0)(64bit) libsymcrypt.so.103(VERSION_101.2)(64bit) libsymcrypt.so.103(VERSION_102.0)(64bit) libsymcrypt.so.103(VERSION_103.0)(64bit) libsymcrypt.so.103(VERSION_103.1)(64bit) pkgconfig(symcrypt) SymCrypt-debuginfo: SymCrypt-debuginfo SymCrypt-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) libsymcrypt.so.103-103.1.0-1.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libsymcrypt.so.103.1.0-103.1.0-1.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit) SymCrypt-debugsource: SymCrypt-debugsource SymCrypt-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2162851 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: fonts, Ocaml, Perl, PHP, SugarActivity, Haskell, R, Python, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Recommendation from comment #1 still applies, but found only SHOULD issues to solve. Accepting the review, thank you for the package!
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/symcrypt
Created attachment 1948770 [details] Proposed change for a package Current package does not use %cmake macro with additional parameters passed by build system. It includes prefix parameter for example, which is contained in pkg-config file. I suggest some changes to the current spec. First make it possible to skip checks. Use %cmake_build for multithread building. Also run %cmake_install, even though it does not seem to help now.
Thanks. Made most of the updates. Getting following from fedora-review on AArch64, see https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fed500/SymCrypt/build/5612997/ SymCrypt.aarch64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libsymcrypt.so.103.1.0 __aarch64_ldset4_relax (/usr/lib64/libsymcrypt.so.103.1.0) SymCrypt.aarch64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libsymcrypt.so.103.1.0 __aarch64_ldadd8_relax (/usr/lib64/libsymcrypt.so.103.1.0) SymCrypt-devel.aarch64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libsymcrypt.so SymCrypt-devel.aarch64: W: no-documentation SymCrypt-devel.aarch64: W: library-not-linked-against-libc /usr/lib64/libsymcrypt.so SymCrypt.aarch64: W: library-not-linked-against-libc /usr/lib64/libsymcrypt.so.103.1.0 SymCrypt-debuginfo.aarch64: E: files-duplicated-waste 1445656 SymCrypt-devel.aarch64: E: double-slash-in-pkgconfig-path /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/symcrypt.pc includedir=${prefix}//usr/include/symcrypt Once have resolved, will upload to the repo.
Oh, found created SymCrypt-devel package is not usable. It is missing main symcrypt.h header and its dependencies. It seems those headers should go into subdirectory, because they need a lot of files with names unrelated to the package. Tried to use it for building SymCrypt-OpenSSL, but found there are missing headers in it.
Created attachment 1949025 [details] Include all headers patch Additional change on top of previous. Make devel require pkgconfig to own %_libdir/pkgconfig directory. And include also static headers from source dir into headers, making them hopefully usable. Because there are quite a lot required local files, move headers into %_includedir/SymCrypt subdirectory. Should provide working pkg-config including those paths.
Thanks for updated patch. May need to explicitly link glibc: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/SymCrypt/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/05615546-SymCrypt/fedora-review/review.txt
I have borrowed an aarch64 machine and tested installing the built package. It is linked to glibc, at least it reports so: # ls -l /usr/lib64/libsymcrypt.so* -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 404040 Mar 10 11:24 /usr/lib64/libsymcrypt.so -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 404040 Mar 10 11:24 /usr/lib64/libsymcrypt.so.103 -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 404048 Mar 10 11:24 /usr/lib64/libsymcrypt.so.103.1.0 # ldd /usr/lib64/libsymcrypt.so linux-vdso.so.1 (0x0000ffff9150a000) libjitterentropy.so.3 => /lib64/libjitterentropy.so.3 (0x0000ffff91420000) libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x0000ffff91260000) /lib/ld-linux-aarch64.so.1 (0x0000ffff914cd000) # rpmlint /root/SymCrypt/rpm/fedora/aarch64/SymCrypt-devel-103.1.0-2.fc37.aarch64.rpm ======================================================================================= rpmlint session starts ====================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 1 SymCrypt-devel.aarch64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libsymcrypt.so SymCrypt-devel.aarch64: W: no-documentation SymCrypt-devel.aarch64: W: library-not-linked-against-libc /usr/lib64/libsymcrypt.so Those are reported on my builds, but yours are not so different: # ls -l /usr/lib64/libsymcrypt.so* -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 469704 Mar 7 19:00 /usr/lib64/libsymcrypt.so lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 22 Mar 7 19:00 /usr/lib64/libsymcrypt.so.103 -> libsymcrypt.so.103.1.0 -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 469712 Mar 7 19:00 /usr/lib64/libsymcrypt.so.103.1.0 I think the libsymcrypt.so should be made symlink to libsymcrypt.so.103, not a copy. That is a problem to be solved. But they reference at least libc.so.6, so that is probably some mis-detection. Not sure why. But readelf is missing libc reference: # readelf -ds /usr/lib64/libsymcrypt.so | head Dynamic section at offset 0x6f580 contains 27 entries: Tag Type Name/Value 0x0000000000000001 (NEEDED) Shared library: [libjitterentropy.so.3] 0x000000000000000e (SONAME) Library soname: [libsymcrypt.so.103] 0x0000000000000010 (SYMBOLIC) 0x0 0x0000000000000019 (INIT_ARRAY) 0x7e788 0x000000000000001b (INIT_ARRAYSZ) 8 (bytes) 0x000000000000001a (FINI_ARRAY) 0x7e790 0x000000000000001c (FINI_ARRAYSZ) 8 (bytes) It is the same on x86_64 build. Other libraries contain also Shared library: [libc.so.6]. Something should be tuned in the build system I guess.
Btw created my own testing builds here: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pemensik/symcrypt/ I have prepared also SymCrypt-OpenSSL package to do some testing. I don't want to maintain it, so I won't start my review of it. But if someone wants to use it, be my guest. My specs: https://github.com/pemensik/SymCrypt/tree/fedora/rpm/fedora https://github.com/pemensik/SymCrypt-OpenSSL/tree/fedora
I have started looking into Symcrypt library because of bug #2161326, which requested fixing bind libraries when running with engine using this library. I think it is just Symcrypt which needs fixing in this case. Applications running just fine with OpenSSL default engine will crash in some cases. It might be fine for applications allocating all intermediate crypto state structures on heap and aligned to 16B. But Symcrypt-OpeSSL is not ready as a whole system replacement of default crypto engine in my opinion. Reported the issue upstream, without good resolution so far: https://github.com/microsoft/SymCrypt-OpenSSL/issues/59
Stepping out of the review, although it seems ready. Ping me to reverify.
awilliam