Spec URL: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bPBx46As9m1P-Ht7wMo1tJXdxUlWRMaO/view?usp=sharing SRPM URL: https://drive.google.com/file/d/19wqjKZbKgjlYinG25gaACfQ_5RBjBQzs/view?usp=sharing Description: I have a simple utility that can be used when doing certificate based authentication on Lenovo platforms (converts configuration commands into encrypted strings the BIOS can use). I figured it would be a good opportunity to learn about packaging for Fedora. This is my first attempt. Would love any feedback on what I've done wrong and where it can be improved. Fedora Account System Username: mpearson
Koji build results: [banther@z13 tlmi-auth]$ fedpkg --release f38 scratch-build --srpm results_tlmi-auth/1.0.1/1.fc38/tlmi-auth-1.0.1-1.fc38.src.rpm [====================================] 100% 00:00:00 25.07 KiB 355.32 KiB/sec Building tlmi-auth-1.0.1-1.fc38.src.rpm for f38-candidate Created task: 102863114 Task info: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=102863114 Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)... 102863114 build (f38-candidate, tlmi-auth-1.0.1-1.fc38.src.rpm): free 102863114 build (f38-candidate, tlmi-auth-1.0.1-1.fc38.src.rpm): free -> open (buildvm-s390x-22.s390.fedoraproject.org) 102863121 rebuildSRPM (noarch): open (buildvm-s390x-26.s390.fedoraproject.org) 102863178 buildArch (tlmi-auth-1.0.1-1.fc38.src.rpm, x86_64): free 102863180 buildArch (tlmi-auth-1.0.1-1.fc38.src.rpm, ppc64le): free 102863181 buildArch (tlmi-auth-1.0.1-1.fc38.src.rpm, s390x): free 102863179 buildArch (tlmi-auth-1.0.1-1.fc38.src.rpm, aarch64): open (buildvm-a64-13.iad2.fedoraproject.org) 102863177 buildArch (tlmi-auth-1.0.1-1.fc38.src.rpm, i686): open (buildvm-x86-31.iad2.fedoraproject.org) 102863121 rebuildSRPM (noarch): open (buildvm-s390x-26.s390.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 3 free 3 open 1 done 0 failed 102863178 buildArch (tlmi-auth-1.0.1-1.fc38.src.rpm, x86_64): free -> open (buildvm-x86-07.iad2.fedoraproject.org) 102863180 buildArch (tlmi-auth-1.0.1-1.fc38.src.rpm, ppc64le): free -> open (buildvm-ppc64le-06.iad2.fedoraproject.org) 102863181 buildArch (tlmi-auth-1.0.1-1.fc38.src.rpm, s390x): free -> open (buildvm-s390x-23.s390.fedoraproject.org) 102863178 buildArch (tlmi-auth-1.0.1-1.fc38.src.rpm, x86_64): open (buildvm-x86-07.iad2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 5 open 2 done 0 failed 102863181 buildArch (tlmi-auth-1.0.1-1.fc38.src.rpm, s390x): open (buildvm-s390x-23.s390.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 4 open 3 done 0 failed 102863179 buildArch (tlmi-auth-1.0.1-1.fc38.src.rpm, aarch64): open (buildvm-a64-13.iad2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 3 open 4 done 0 failed 102863177 buildArch (tlmi-auth-1.0.1-1.fc38.src.rpm, i686): open (buildvm-x86-31.iad2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 2 open 5 done 0 failed 102863180 buildArch (tlmi-auth-1.0.1-1.fc38.src.rpm, ppc64le): open (buildvm-ppc64le-06.iad2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 1 open 6 done 0 failed 102863114 build (f38-candidate, tlmi-auth-1.0.1-1.fc38.src.rpm): open (buildvm-s390x-22.s390.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 0 open 7 done 0 failed
Taking this review.
> Spec URL: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bPBx46As9m1P-Ht7wMo1tJXdxUlWRMaO/view?usp=sharing > SRPM URL: https://drive.google.com/file/d/19wqjKZbKgjlYinG25gaACfQ_5RBjBQzs/view?usp=sharing I can't use fedora-review with this, can you please put these somewhere that can be accessed as raw content directly via HTTP(S)?
Thanks Neal, As discussed - created a COPR project; thanks for the pointers Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mpearson/tlmi-auth/fedora-38-x86_64/06154284-tlmi-auth/tlmi-auth.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mpearson/tlmi-auth/fedora-38-x86_64/06154284-tlmi-auth/tlmi-auth-1.0.1-1.fc38.src.rpm Copr Build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mpearson/tlmi-auth/build/6154284/ Let me know if you need anything else. Note - the rawhide build worked, but the fedora-review section failed. Mark
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/tlmi-auth/licensecheck.txt [x]: 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. [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. [-]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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). [x]: 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. [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]: 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]: 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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: tlmi-auth-1.0.1-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm tlmi-auth-debuginfo-1.0.1-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm tlmi-auth-debugsource-1.0.1-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm tlmi-auth-1.0.1-1.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/tmphr1o2toj')] checks: 31, packages: 4 tlmi-auth.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tlmi-auth 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: tlmi-auth-debuginfo-1.0.1-1.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/tmp_rcnzl__')] checks: 31, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 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: 3 tlmi-auth.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tlmi-auth 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://www.github.com/lenovo/tlmi-auth//archive/refs/tags/v1.0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7350e29be99a47791b6024200a0baa9a44d76f30d4df8cbe2e1b566e52f7af8a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7350e29be99a47791b6024200a0baa9a44d76f30d4df8cbe2e1b566e52f7af8a Requires -------- tlmi-auth (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) tlmi-auth-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): tlmi-auth-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- tlmi-auth: tlmi-auth tlmi-auth(x86-64) tlmi-auth-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) tlmi-auth-debuginfo tlmi-auth-debuginfo(x86-64) tlmi-auth-debugsource: tlmi-auth-debugsource tlmi-auth-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name tlmi-auth --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, R, Perl, Python, PHP, fonts, Java, Ocaml, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
I see no issues of note (and I'll sponsor you to be a packager), so... PACKAGE APPROVED.
As a note, when I try and create the repo with fedpkg I get this: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/code/toddlers/plugins/scm_request_processor.py", line 200, in process self.process_ticket(issue) File "/code/toddlers/plugins/scm_request_processor.py", line 308, in process_ticket self.create_new_repo( File "/code/toddlers/plugins/scm_request_processor.py", line 591, in create_new_repo pdc.new_global_component(repo, dist_git_url) File "/code/toddlers/utils/pdc.py", line 223, in new_global_component pdc["global-components"]._(payload) File "/usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/pdc_client/__init__.py", line 347, in __call__ return self.client(*args, **kwargs) File "/usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/beanbag/namespace.py", line 135, in fn return basefn(getattr(self, ".base"), getattr(self, ".path"), File "/usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/beanbag/url_v1.py", line 102, in call return self.make_request(path, verb, kwargs, body) File "/usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/beanbag/url_v1.py", line 154, in make_request raise BeanBagException(r, beanbag.bbexcept.BeanBagException: Bad response code: 500 I assume this is just the tooling having a bad day so will try again later/tomorrow. I may have upset it - it took me a while to realise that RH bugzilla was using my lenovo address and I had to correct that after a few previous attempts. Mark
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/tlmi-auth
FEDORA-2023-78226a5970 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-78226a5970
FEDORA-2023-78226a5970 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-59cd1cada6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-59cd1cada6
So...I think I'm 'done' :) Or at least the package is created and available in testing for Fedora38 and forwards. If I've understood it correctly - it will move from testing to stable in 7 days (presumably as long as no issues) I've tested it and it worked for me. If there's anything else I'm supposed to do let me know. Many thanks for the help along the way mark
FEDORA-2023-59cd1cada6 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-59cd1cada6 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-59cd1cada6 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-59cd1cada6 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.