Spec URL: https://fantom.fedorapeople.org/libxeddsa.spec SRPM URL: https://fantom.fedorapeople.org/libxeddsa-2.0.0-1%5e20230730git8ab957a.fc38.src.rpm Description: A toolkit around Curve25519 and Ed25519 key pairs, with a focus on conversion between the two. Fedora Account System Username: fantom
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6225769 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2227804-libxeddsa/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06225769-libxeddsa/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.
Scratch build: rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=104180340 epel9: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=104180341
Spec URL: https://fantom.fedorapeople.org/libxeddsa.spec SRPM URL: https://fantom.fedorapeople.org/libxeddsa-2.0.0-2%5e20230730git8ab957a.fc38.src.rpm Scratch build: rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=104226452 (rawhide only, not epel9)
Created attachment 1981136 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6225769 to 6230083
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6230083 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2227804-libxeddsa/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06230083-libxeddsa/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.
Spec URL: https://fantom.fedorapeople.org/libxeddsa.spec SRPM URL: https://fantom.fedorapeople.org/libxeddsa-2.0.0-3%5e20230730git8ab957a.fc38.src.rpm I tried to set manually the soname using the gcc command, but it failed with this error msg: ``` + gcc -O2 -flto=auto -ffat-lto-objects -fexceptions -g -grecord-gcc-switches -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-U_FORTIFY_SOURCE,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=3 -Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -fstack-protector-strong -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1 -m64 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection -fcf-protection -fno-omit-frame-pointer -mno-omit-leaf-frame-pointer -Wl,-soname,libxeddsa.so.0.0.0 -o '/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/libxeddsa-2.0.0-2^20230730git8ab957a.fc38.x86_64/usr/lib64/libxeddsa.so.0.0.0' /usr/bin/ld: /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/13/../../../../lib64/crt1.o: in function `_start': (.text+0x1b): undefined reference to `main' collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status ``` There is one rpmlint warning remaining: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libxeddsa.so.0.0.0 libxeddsa.so (Opening a ticket to upstream)
Created attachment 1981382 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6230083 to 6235898
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6235898 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2227804-libxeddsa/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06235898-libxeddsa/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.
A build which generates a shared library can be found at: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fed500/libxeddsa/build/6260242/ See also https://github.com/Syndace/libxeddsa/pull/6 Doxygen can generate other forms of documentation, for example man pages, not sure if these would be helpful though, but maybe worth checking. Would be helpful to indicate modified and bundled ref10
Thank you for your help :) Here is the new release. Spec URL: https://fantom.fedorapeople.org/libxeddsa.spec SRPM URL: https://fantom.fedorapeople.org/libxeddsa-2.0.0-4%5e20230824git1140086.fc38.src.rpm Scratch build: rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=105291662 f39: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=105291663
Created attachment 1985293 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6235898 to 6343726
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6343726 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2227804-libxeddsa/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06343726-libxeddsa/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.
I will take this review.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues ====== - My reading of the Snapshots part of the Versioning guide: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snapshots is that the snapshot part goes in the Version field, not the Release field. - I would also like to recommend that you use %autorelease and %autochangelog instead of handling them manually. This is up to you, however. - It looks like the code in the ref10 directory is public domain. In that case, the license field must be "MIT AND LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain", along with a comment about the license breakdown. - Since ref10 is bundled, should the main package contain "Provides: bundled(ref10)"? ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [!]: 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". 165 files have unknown license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: 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]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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 5779 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: 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. [-]: 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. [x]: %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]: 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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libxeddsa-2.0.0-4^20230824git1140086.fc41.x86_64.rpm libxeddsa-devel-2.0.0-4^20230824git1140086.fc41.x86_64.rpm libxeddsa-doc-2.0.0-4^20230824git1140086.fc41.noarch.rpm libxeddsa-debuginfo-2.0.0-4^20230824git1140086.fc41.x86_64.rpm libxeddsa-debugsource-2.0.0-4^20230824git1140086.fc41.x86_64.rpm libxeddsa-2.0.0-4^20230824git1140086.fc41.src.rpm ================================================ rpmlint session starts ================================================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmptbgbytqw')] checks: 32, packages: 6 libxeddsa.src: E: spelling-error ('birational', '%description -l en_US birational -> bi rational, bi-rational, irrational') libxeddsa.src: E: spelling-error ('toolset', "%description -l en_US toolset -> tool set, tool-set, tool's") libxeddsa.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('birational', '%description -l en_US birational -> bi rational, bi-rational, irrational') libxeddsa.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('toolset', "%description -l en_US toolset -> tool set, tool-set, tool's") ========== 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 0 warnings, 35 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.6 s =========== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libxeddsa-debuginfo-2.0.0-4^20230824git1140086.fc41.x86_64.rpm ================================================ rpmlint session starts ================================================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmp3r4xkjfb')] checks: 32, packages: 1 =========== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s =========== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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: 32, packages: 5 libxeddsa.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('birational', '%description -l en_US birational -> bi rational, bi-rational, irrational') libxeddsa.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('toolset', "%description -l en_US toolset -> tool set, tool-set, tool's") 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 32 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.6 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Syndace/libxeddsa/archive/11400861f5935bb36f85a399a689bbf9b3ed9c5d/libxeddsa-1140086.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d86562b09ddb2c85e28a7dbbdb4ad55e0c2720eeb2b3ae382ebe16a001515d76 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d86562b09ddb2c85e28a7dbbdb4ad55e0c2720eeb2b3ae382ebe16a001515d76 Requires -------- libxeddsa (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libsodium.so.26()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libxeddsa-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libxeddsa(x86-64) libxeddsa.so.2()(64bit) libxeddsa-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libxeddsa libxeddsa-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libxeddsa-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libxeddsa: libxeddsa libxeddsa(x86-64) libxeddsa.so.2()(64bit) libxeddsa-devel: libxeddsa-devel libxeddsa-devel(x86-64) libxeddsa-doc: libxeddsa-doc libxeddsa-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libxeddsa-debuginfo libxeddsa-debuginfo(x86-64) libxeddsa.so.2.0.0-2.0.0-4^20230824git1140086.fc41.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libxeddsa-debugsource: libxeddsa-debugsource libxeddsa-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2227804 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: fonts, Ruby, Java, R, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, SugarActivity, Python, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #14) > - My reading of the Snapshots part of the Versioning guide: > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/ > #_snapshots > is that the snapshot part goes in the Version field, not the Release field. I don't think that is correct Jerry. However, Matthieu: in the value: Release: 4^%{snapdate}git%{shortcommit}%{?dist} , what is the caret do/for ? In the past, it would be '.', and '^' wouldn't be allowed. Some examples (from rpm-specs.latest.tar.xz (form 2023-12-24)): yosyshq-abc.spec:Release: 1.%{snapdate}git%{shortcommit0}%{?dist} And if the source is pre-release, then perhaps a leading '0.' as in the following egs: catalyst.spec:Release: 0.7.20201218git%{shortcommit}%{?dist} calypso.spec:Release: 0.12.%{date}git%{shortcommit}%{?dist} js-jquery-ui-touch-punch.spec:Release: 0.15.20141219git%{shortcommit}%{?dist} So maybe version-release should expand to be: 2.0.0-0.4.20230824git1140086 Also, seems like there is newer commits/snapshots which could/should be used instead? What do you think Jerry?
(In reply to David Timms from comment #15) > (In reply to Jerry James from comment #14) > > - My reading of the Snapshots part of the Versioning guide: > > > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/ > > #_snapshots > > is that the snapshot part goes in the Version field, not the Release field. > I don't think that is correct Jerry. Why don't you think it is correct? In the "Handling non-sorting versions with tilde, dot, and caret" section, all of the examples, ALL of them, refer to the Version field. Not one refers to the Release field. The "Snapshots" section likewise gives examples showing the Version field only, never the Release field. The "Examples" section below that also gives examples showing the Version field only, never the Release field.
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #14) > Issues > ====== > - My reading of the Snapshots part of the Versioning guide: > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/ > #_snapshots > is that the snapshot part goes in the Version field, not the Release field. Fixed. > > - I would also like to recommend that you use %autorelease and %autochangelog > instead of handling them manually. This is up to you, however. Will make it for all of my packages. (Just not today). > > - It looks like the code in the ref10 directory is public domain. In that > case, > the license field must be "MIT AND LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain", along > with a comment about the license breakdown. Indeed. I apologies for this one, I was so bad. > > - Since ref10 is bundled, should the main package contain > "Provides: bundled(ref10)"? This package is not a bundle of a library. ref10 is XedDSA. And libxeddsa is the system-library for it. I believe all programs which will require XedDSA will require "libxeddsa.so.2()(64bit)" which is provided by my package. (In reply to David Timms from comment #15) > (In reply to Jerry James from comment #14) > > - My reading of the Snapshots part of the Versioning guide: > > > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/ > > #_snapshots > > is that the snapshot part goes in the Version field, not the Release field. > I don't think that is correct Jerry. > > However, Matthieu: in the value: > Release: 4^%{snapdate}git%{shortcommit}%{?dist} > , what is the caret do/for ? > In the past, it would be '.', and '^' wouldn't be allowed. Some examples > (from rpm-specs.latest.tar.xz (form 2023-12-24)): > yosyshq-abc.spec:Release: 1.%{snapdate}git%{shortcommit0}%{?dist} > > And if the source is pre-release, then perhaps a leading '0.' as in the > following egs: > catalyst.spec:Release: 0.7.20201218git%{shortcommit}%{?dist} > calypso.spec:Release: 0.12.%{date}git%{shortcommit}%{?dist} > js-jquery-ui-touch-punch.spec:Release: 0.15.20141219git%{shortcommit}%{?dist} > > So maybe version-release should expand to be: 2.0.0-0.4.20230824git1140086 > > Also, seems like there is newer commits/snapshots which could/should be used > instead? > What do you think Jerry? The only answer I can provide here is more context: When I started to make the package of libxeddsa, there was tarballs, for the 2.0.0 version plus some older. Then, there was some commits added, arround the lib but not in the lib itself. In this scenario, if I take a git snapshot, I'm in the "Post-release scenario". The Guideline has been changed and has evolved by the time. Please have a look at this section of the Guideline : "Traditional versioning with part of the upstream version information in the Release field" (everything is in the title). Ref: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#traditional-versioning One day, upstream decided to delete all tarballs from github, and keep only the git repository. The conversations of this topic was in Jabber chatrooms. The version 2.0.0 remains in the git history, so I kept the post-release scenario for my package. Many thanks Jerry, for the review. You are right, I was wrong :-) Here is the new release. Spec URL: https://fantom.fedorapeople.org/libxeddsa.spec SRPM URL: https://fantom.fedorapeople.org/libxeddsa-2.0.0%5e20240426gitd725c81-5.fc39.src.rpm
That looks great. This package is APPROVED.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libxeddsa
FEDORA-2024-cb56c86991 (libxeddsa-2.0.0^20240426gitd725c81-5.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-cb56c86991
FEDORA-2024-cb56c86991 (libxeddsa-2.0.0^20240426gitd725c81-5.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-aaed0f1f5b (libxeddsa-2.0.0^20240426gitd725c81-5.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-aaed0f1f5b
FEDORA-2024-fad595ace4 (libxeddsa-2.0.0^20240426gitd725c81-5.fc39) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-fad595ace4
FEDORA-2024-fad595ace4 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-fad595ace4 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-fad595ace4 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-aaed0f1f5b has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-aaed0f1f5b \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-aaed0f1f5b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-fad595ace4 (libxeddsa-2.0.0^20240426gitd725c81-5.fc39) has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-aaed0f1f5b (libxeddsa-2.0.0^20240426gitd725c81-5.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.