Spec URL: https://dbelyavs.fedorapeople.org/liboqs.spec SRPM URL: https://dbelyavs.fedorapeople.org/liboqs-0.7.2-0.fc38.src.rpm Description: liboqs is an open source C library for quantum-safe cryptographic algorithms. liboqs provides - a collection of open source implementations of quantum-safe key encapsulation mechanism (KEM) and digital signature algorithms; the full list can be found below - a common API for these algorithms - a test harness and benchmarking routines liboqs is part of the Open Quantum Safe (OQS) project led by Douglas Stebila and Michele Mosca, which aims to develop and integrate into applications quantum-safe cryptography to facilitate deployment and testing in real world contexts. In particular, OQS provides prototype integrations of liboqs into TLS and SSH, through OpenSSL and OpenSSH. Fedora Account System Username: dbelyavs
Notable issues: - Afaik -devel package shouldn't contain *.so.2 (but .so only) - %changelog is empty; either opt-in to rpmautospec or add a proper changelog entry, see: https://docs.pagure.org/Fedora-Infra.rpmautospec/opting-in.html - Multiple licenses are found; express them in "License:" with "AND" or add justfication - Install license files from upstream release with %license - Good to run tests in %check - "Patch01:" doesn't have justification comment; I would also omit the "01" suffix if %autosetup or %autopatch is used - "Source:" should comply with the guideline, so spectool -g works: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ - Package doesn't build in the current rawhide (with "unsupported instruction `vpcmpeqd'), but in F37 Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [-]: 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: [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* MIT License", "MIT License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* The Unlicense", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Public domain", "BSD 3-Clause License BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* MIT License [generated file]", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "CMU License". 4833 files have unknown license. [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: 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]: 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 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]: 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: [!]: 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. [!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [!]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [?]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [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.
https://dbelyavs.fedorapeople.org/liboqs-0.7.2-1.fc36.src.rpm is updated srpm https://dbelyavs.fedorapeople.org/liboqs.spec is updated spec (In reply to Daiki Ueno from comment #1) > Notable issues: > > - Afaik -devel package shouldn't contain *.so.2 (but .so only) Not sure but it can be done if you insist > - %changelog is empty; either opt-in to rpmautospec or add a proper > changelog entry, see: > https://docs.pagure.org/Fedora-Infra.rpmautospec/opting-in.html Done > - Multiple licenses are found; express them in "License:" with "AND" or add > justfication Done > - Install license files from upstream release with %license Done > - Good to run tests in %check > - "Patch01:" doesn't have justification comment; I would also omit the "01" > suffix if %autosetup or %autopatch is used Done > - "Source:" should comply with the guideline, so spectool -g works: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ Done > - Package doesn't build in the current rawhide (with "unsupported > instruction `vpcmpeqd'), but in F37 I disabled AVX512 to avoid this error. These options to be tuned later
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5521897 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2168929-liboqs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05521897-liboqs/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
(In reply to Dmitry Belyavskiy from comment #2) > https://dbelyavs.fedorapeople.org/liboqs-0.7.2-1.fc36.src.rpm is updated srpm > https://dbelyavs.fedorapeople.org/liboqs.spec is updated spec > > (In reply to Daiki Ueno from comment #1) > > Notable issues: > > > > - Afaik -devel package shouldn't contain *.so.2 (but .so only) > Not sure but it can be done if you insist I think this should be done, otherwise rebuilding dependent packages upon soname bump will be difficult. The suggestion is: - the main package owns %{_libdir}/liboqs.so.2 and %{_libdir}/liboqs.so.0.7.2 (the actual SONAME according to readelf is liboqs.so.2) - the devel package owns %{_libdir}/liboqs.so > > - Multiple licenses are found; express them in "License:" with "AND" or add > > justfication > Done Good to use SPDX license identifiers for a new package; see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 Currently it says: "License: MIT and Apache 2.0 and BSD 3-Clause and CC0-1.0 and Unlicense" which is not recognized: $ license-validate -v "MIT and Apache 2.0 and BSD 3-Clause and CC0-1.0 and Unlicense" Not a valid license string This seems to be acceptable: $ license-validate -v "MIT AND Apache-2.0 AND BSD-3-Clause AND CC0-1.0 AND Unlicense" Approved license
Spec URL: https://dbelyavs.fedorapeople.org/liboqs.spec SRPM URL: https://dbelyavs.fedorapeople.org/liboqs-0.7.2-1.fc36.src.rpm [fedora-review-service-build]
Created attachment 1944283 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 5521897 to 5528439
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5528439 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2168929-liboqs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05528439-liboqs/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Created attachment 1944284 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 5528439 to 5528467
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5528467 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2168929-liboqs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05528467-liboqs/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Created attachment 1944355 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 5528467 to 5529234
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5529234 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2168929-liboqs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05529234-liboqs/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Created attachment 1945966 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 5529234 to 5561191
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5561191 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2168929-liboqs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05561191-liboqs/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Dmitry, let me know once the licensing concern (regarding CC0 being not acceptable in Fedora) has been cleared.
Not yet, AFAIK. Is it the last show-stopper?
If I may suggest, it would be nice if the package was built with `-DOQS_USE_OPENSSL=OFF`, so crypto libraries other than OpenSSL (GnuTLS, NSS, etc.) can consume it without pulling in OpenSSL as a dependency. Ideally the low-level primitives used internally (AES, SHA-2, SHA-3, and PRNG) could be pluggable with their native implementation (e.g., Nettle for GnuTLS, PKCS#11 for NSS).
Spec URL: https://dbelyavs.fedorapeople.org/liboqs.spec SRPM URL: https://dbelyavs.fedorapeople.org/liboqs-0.8.0-1.fc37.src.rpm [fedora-review-service-build]
Daiki, we've got the license exception and the license has changed for some folders.
Created attachment 1976217 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 5561191 to 6178928
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6178928 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2168929-liboqs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06178928-liboqs/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Thank you for the update. Looks good to me.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/liboqs
Done. Many thanks! Next is oqsprovider