Bug 2258041 - Review Request: pam_xdg_runtime_dir - Creates /run/user/<uid> is pam session phase
Summary: Review Request: pam_xdg_runtime_dir - Creates /run/user/<uid> is pam session...
Keywords:
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2024-01-12 10:46 UTC by Steve Traylen
Modified: 2025-06-27 03:51 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2025-01-15 15:13:59 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Steve Traylen 2024-01-12 10:46:10 UTC
Spec URL: https://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/pam_xdg_runtime_dir/pam_xdg_runtime_dir.spec
SRPM URL: https://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/pam_xdg_runtime_dir/pam_xdg_runtime_dir-1.0.0-1.fc39.src.rpm
Description:  Creates /run/user/<uid> is pam session phase
Fedora Account System Username: stevetraylen

Comment 1 Fedora Review Service 2024-01-12 10:52:17 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6887766
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2258041-pam_xdg_runtime_dir/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06887766-pam_xdg_runtime_dir/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 2 Package Review 2025-01-12 00:45:27 UTC
This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry
it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software
into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the
NEEDINFO flag.

You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version
available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase
chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you
need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned
and will be closed.
Thank you for your patience.

Comment 3 Steve Traylen 2025-01-15 15:13:59 UTC
I am still interested.

Comment 4 Steve Traylen 2025-01-30 17:26:16 UTC
I closed this accidentally I think - I am still interested.

Comment 5 andreyesquivel.dev 2025-06-26 04:02:39 UTC
Hello team, 

This is a mock review for the Fedora sponsorship process. 

During the rpmlint test on the spec file, a warning was found indicating the absence of a %check section:

W: no-%check-section

To investigate this, I examined the Makefile and the source code files included in the tarball. The Makefile does not include any target or commands related to running automated tests, and there are no separate test scripts or test directories in the source archive. It would be appropriate to add a %check section with a comment after installing (see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_scriptlets) explaining that no tests are available, which would silence the rpmlint warning and clarify this point for future maintainers. Suggested addition:

                                                            %check
                                                            # No upstream tests available

Additionally, rpmlint on the built RPM returned the following output:

pam_xdg_runtime_dir.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('uid', 'Summary(en_US) uid -> yid, id, aid')
pam_xdg_runtime_dir.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('systemd', '%description -l en_US systemd -> systems, system, system d')
pam_xdg_runtime_dir.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('logind', '%description -l en_US logind -> logins, login, log ind')
pam_xdg_runtime_dir.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('uid', '%description -l en_US uid -> yid, id, aid')
pam_xdg_runtime_dir.x86_64: E: pam-unauthorized-module pam_xdg_runtime_dir.so

Regarding the spelling errors, these warnings occur because rpmlint uses an English dictionary that does not recognize specific Linux-related keywords. These can safely be ignored in this context.

Finally, the pam-unauthorized-module error reflects Fedora policy around security-sensitive components. Please contact the appropriate Fedora team for review. (see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/what-can-be-packaged/).

Please let me know if further clarifications or revisions are needed. I hope this may be helpful for future maintainers.

Comment 6 andreyesquivel.dev 2025-06-27 03:51:15 UTC
Hello team, 

As part of my Fedora sponsorship process, I have performed a thorough review using the original files provided in this Bugzilla ticket.

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
This is a PAM module installed to /usr/lib64/security/, not intended for development or linking.

[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[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:
[!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
licensecheck shows 7 files with unknown 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* Apache License 2.0". 7
     files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/andreyesquivel/thirdmock/review-
     pam_xdg_runtime_dir/licensecheck.txt
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/security

[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
Cannot confirm permissibility.

[-]: 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.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
Some hardcoded paths (/usr/lib64/security) are present.

[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.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
pam_xdg_runtime_dir.x86_64: E: pam-unauthorized-module pam_xdg_runtime_dir.so (see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/what-can-be-packaged/)

[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 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 662 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.
The LICENSE file is present, but several source files have unclear or missing license headers.

[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
The LICENSE file is included by upstream in the tarball, not added separately in the spec.

[ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
gpgverify is not used. The upstream does not publish signatures.

[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
Currently only tested on x86_64. PAM modules may behave differently on other architectures due to libpam layout. 

[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
A %check section is missing. Including even minimal validation (e.g., successful loading of the module) is recommended.

[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]: 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: pam_xdg_runtime_dir-1.0.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
          pam_xdg_runtime_dir-1.0.0-1.fc43.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmpyhy19oyl')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

pam_xdg_runtime_dir.src: E: spelling-error ('uid', 'Summary(en_US) uid -> yid, id, aid')
pam_xdg_runtime_dir.src: E: spelling-error ('systemd', '%description -l en_US systemd -> systems, system, system d')
pam_xdg_runtime_dir.src: E: spelling-error ('logind', '%description -l en_US logind -> logins, login, log ind')
pam_xdg_runtime_dir.src: E: spelling-error ('uid', '%description -l en_US uid -> yid, id, aid')
pam_xdg_runtime_dir.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('uid', 'Summary(en_US) uid -> yid, id, aid')
pam_xdg_runtime_dir.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('systemd', '%description -l en_US systemd -> systems, system, system d')
pam_xdg_runtime_dir.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('logind', '%description -l en_US logind -> logins, login, log ind')
pam_xdg_runtime_dir.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('uid', '%description -l en_US uid -> yid, id, aid')
pam_xdg_runtime_dir.x86_64: E: pam-unauthorized-module pam_xdg_runtime_dir.so
pam_xdg_runtime_dir.spec: W: no-%check-section
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 9 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 9 badness; has taken 0.4 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: pam_xdg_runtime_dir-debuginfo-1.0.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmpv5yxpbkk')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s 





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 2

pam_xdg_runtime_dir.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('uid', 'Summary(en_US) uid -> yid, id, aid')
pam_xdg_runtime_dir.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('systemd', '%description -l en_US systemd -> systems, system, system d')
pam_xdg_runtime_dir.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('logind', '%description -l en_US logind -> logins, login, log ind')
pam_xdg_runtime_dir.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('uid', '%description -l en_US uid -> yid, id, aid')
pam_xdg_runtime_dir.x86_64: E: pam-unauthorized-module pam_xdg_runtime_dir.so
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 0 warnings, 9 filtered, 5 badness; has taken 0.5 s 



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
pam_xdg_runtime_dir: /usr/lib64/security/pam_xdg_runtime_dir.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/cernops/pam_xdg_runtime_dir/archive/1.0.0/pam_xdg_runtime_dir-1.0.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 9216bf1a79806c50880ebd21cc04788683b328443150211606d24c2475ef6266
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9216bf1a79806c50880ebd21cc04788683b328443150211606d24c2475ef6266


Requires
--------
pam_xdg_runtime_dir (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libpam.so.0()(64bit)
    libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_1.0)(64bit)
    libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_EXTENSION_1.0)(64bit)
    libselinux.so.1()(64bit)
    libselinux.so.1(LIBSELINUX_1.0)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
pam_xdg_runtime_dir:
    pam_xdg_runtime_dir
    pam_xdg_runtime_dir(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n pam_xdg_runtime_dir
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, fonts, Perl, Python, PHP, Haskell, R, Java, SugarActivity
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Please let me know if any further clarification is needed.


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