Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/golang-github-aperturerobotics-jacobsa-crypto.spec SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/golang-github-aperturerobotics-jacobsa-crypto-1.0.2-1.fc39.src.rpm Description: This repository contains Go packages related to cryptographic standards that are not included in the Go standard library. These include: - SIV mode, which provides deterministic encryption with authentication. - CMAC, a message authentication system used by SIV mode. This repository was forked from jacobsa/crypto for maintenance. Fedora Account System Username: eclipseo To build it against the dependencies, use the following COPR in your rawhide mock.cfg: [copr:copr.fedorainfracloud.org:eclipseo:gocryptfs] name=Copr repo for gocryptfs owned by eclipseo baseurl=https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/eclipseo/gocryptfs/fedora-rawhide-/ type=rpm-md skip_if_unavailable=True gpgcheck=1 gpgkey=https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/eclipseo/gocryptfs/pubkey.gpg repo_gpgcheck=0 enabled=1 enabled_metadata=1
I will take this review.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Note the files-duplicate warning from rpmlint below. Doe we need README.md in both places? - Since the testing files are included in the binary RPM, their licenses must be reflected in the spec file License field. At a quick look: - OpenSSL: testing/gencases/aes_locl.h - BSD-3-Clause: testing/gencases/siv.h ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: 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 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 680 bytes in 1 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. [-]: 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. [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]: 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]: 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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: golang-github-aperturerobotics-jacobsa-crypto-devel-1.0.2-1.fc40.noarch.rpm golang-github-aperturerobotics-jacobsa-crypto-1.0.2-1.fc40.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/tmpm7bb7pe_')] checks: 31, packages: 2 golang-github-aperturerobotics-jacobsa-crypto.spec: W: no-%build-section golang-github-aperturerobotics-jacobsa-crypto-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/aperturerobotics/jacobsa-crypto/.goipath golang-github-aperturerobotics-jacobsa-crypto-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/aperturerobotics/jacobsa-crypto/README.md /usr/share/doc/golang-github-aperturerobotics-jacobsa-crypto-devel/README.md ================= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s ================= Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 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: 31, packages: 1 golang-github-aperturerobotics-jacobsa-crypto-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/aperturerobotics/jacobsa-crypto/.goipath golang-github-aperturerobotics-jacobsa-crypto-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/aperturerobotics/jacobsa-crypto/README.md /usr/share/doc/golang-github-aperturerobotics-jacobsa-crypto-devel/README.md 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/aperturerobotics/jacobsa-crypto/archive/v1.0.2/jacobsa-crypto-1.0.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e5741a7da338e9c269f940a9ddf74cb72da8007eed589677c7db4bce2b64fad4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e5741a7da338e9c269f940a9ddf74cb72da8007eed589677c7db4bce2b64fad4 Requires -------- golang-github-aperturerobotics-jacobsa-crypto-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): go-filesystem Provides -------- golang-github-aperturerobotics-jacobsa-crypto-devel: golang(github.com/aperturerobotics/jacobsa-crypto/cmac) golang(github.com/aperturerobotics/jacobsa-crypto/common) golang(github.com/aperturerobotics/jacobsa-crypto/siv) golang(github.com/aperturerobotics/jacobsa-crypto/testing) golang(github.com/aperturerobotics/jacobsa-crypto/testing/cases) golang-github-aperturerobotics-jacobsa-crypto-devel golang-ipath(github.com/aperturerobotics/jacobsa-crypto) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2241611 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-eclipseo Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, R, Ruby, Java, Haskell, Perl, Ocaml, PHP, fonts, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/golang-github-aperturerobotics-jacobsa-crypto.spec SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/golang-github-aperturerobotics-jacobsa-crypto-1.0.2-1.fc39.src.rpm Ok so now we have: # Apache-2.0: main library # BSD-4-Clause-Shortened: # - testing/gencases/reference_siv.go # - testing/gencases/siv.h # OpenSSL: testing/gencases/aes_locl.h License: Apache-2.0 AND BSD-4-Clause-Shortened AND OpenSSL > - Note the files-duplicate warning from rpmlint below. Doe we need README.md in both places? Noted but I can't do anything about it,, md files are picked up by go install. Thanks for the review!
Okay, I agree that is the correct License expression. This package is APPROVED>