Bug 2168929 - Review Request: liboqs - implementation of PQ crypto algorithms
Summary: Review Request: liboqs - implementation of PQ crypto algorithms
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Daiki Ueno
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: https://github.com/open-quantum-safe/...
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 2223569
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2023-02-10 15:38 UTC by Dmitry Belyavskiy
Modified: 2023-07-18 13:49 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2023-07-17 16:20:47 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
dueno: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5521897 to 5528439 (1.13 KB, patch)
2023-02-15 11:14 UTC, Jakub Kadlčík
no flags Details | Diff
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5528439 to 5528467 (694 bytes, patch)
2023-02-15 11:48 UTC, Jakub Kadlčík
no flags Details | Diff
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5528467 to 5529234 (731 bytes, patch)
2023-02-15 16:44 UTC, Jakub Kadlčík
no flags Details | Diff
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5529234 to 5561191 (1009 bytes, patch)
2023-02-23 17:06 UTC, Jakub Kadlčík
no flags Details | Diff
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5561191 to 6178928 (3.02 KB, patch)
2023-07-17 14:38 UTC, Fedora Review Service
no flags Details | Diff


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Github open-quantum-safe liboqs issues 1389 0 None open F38/Fedora rawhide test failures 2023-02-13 17:50:04 UTC
Gitlab fedora/legal fedora-license-data issues 158 0 None opened License Review: CC0 - exception request 2023-02-27 08:22:48 UTC

Description Dmitry Belyavskiy 2023-02-10 15:38:36 UTC
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

Comment 1 Daiki Ueno 2023-02-11 02:35:11 UTC
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.

Comment 2 Dmitry Belyavskiy 2023-02-13 14:00:01 UTC
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

Comment 3 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-02-13 14:12:47 UTC
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.

Comment 4 Daiki Ueno 2023-02-13 16:32:39 UTC
(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

Comment 5 Dmitry Belyavskiy 2023-02-15 11:10:54 UTC
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]

Comment 6 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-02-15 11:14:17 UTC
Created attachment 1944283 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5521897 to 5528439

Comment 7 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-02-15 11:14:19 UTC
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.

Comment 8 Dmitry Belyavskiy 2023-02-15 11:44:43 UTC
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]

Comment 9 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-02-15 11:48:01 UTC
Created attachment 1944284 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5528439 to 5528467

Comment 10 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-02-15 11:48:04 UTC
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.

Comment 11 Dmitry Belyavskiy 2023-02-15 16:34:13 UTC
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]

Comment 12 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-02-15 16:44:40 UTC
Created attachment 1944355 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5528467 to 5529234

Comment 13 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-02-15 16:44:43 UTC
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.

Comment 14 Dmitry Belyavskiy 2023-02-23 16:52:13 UTC
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]

Comment 15 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-02-23 17:06:57 UTC
Created attachment 1945966 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5529234 to 5561191

Comment 16 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-02-23 17:06:59 UTC
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.

Comment 17 Daiki Ueno 2023-02-27 02:03:49 UTC
Dmitry, let me know once the licensing concern (regarding CC0 being not acceptable in Fedora) has been cleared.

Comment 18 Dmitry Belyavskiy 2023-02-27 08:20:53 UTC
Not yet, AFAIK. Is it the last show-stopper?

Comment 19 Daiki Ueno 2023-04-12 09:54:34 UTC
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).

Comment 21 Dmitry Belyavskiy 2023-07-17 11:20:50 UTC
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]

Comment 22 Dmitry Belyavskiy 2023-07-17 14:26:09 UTC
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]

Comment 23 Dmitry Belyavskiy 2023-07-17 14:29:06 UTC
Daiki, we've got the license exception and the license has changed for some folders.

Comment 24 Fedora Review Service 2023-07-17 14:38:18 UTC
Created attachment 1976217 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5561191 to 6178928

Comment 25 Fedora Review Service 2023-07-17 14:38:20 UTC
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.

Comment 26 Daiki Ueno 2023-07-17 14:56:17 UTC
Thank you for the update. Looks good to me.

Comment 27 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2023-07-17 15:39:01 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/liboqs

Comment 28 Dmitry Belyavskiy 2023-07-17 16:20:47 UTC
Done. Many thanks!

Next is oqsprovider


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.