Bug 2278155 - Review Request: rust-dsa - Pure Rust implementation of the Digital Signature Algorithm
Summary: Review Request: rust-dsa - Pure Rust implementation of the Digital Signature ...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: blinxen
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: https://crates.io/crates/dsa
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2024-05-01 14:55 UTC by Fabio Valentini
Modified: 2024-05-06 19:03 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2024-05-06 19:03:07 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
h-k-81: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Fabio Valentini 2024-05-01 14:55:03 UTC
Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-dsa.spec
SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-dsa-0.6.3-1.fc40.src.rpm

Description:
Pure Rust implementation of the Digital Signature Algorithm (DSA) as
specified in FIPS 186-4 (Digital Signature Standard), providing RFC6979
deterministic signatures as well as support for added entropy.

Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe

Comment 1 Fabio Valentini 2024-05-01 14:55:06 UTC
This package built on koji:  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=117113569

Comment 2 Fedora Review Service 2024-05-01 15:06:49 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7396518
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2278155-rust-dsa/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07396518-rust-dsa/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 3 blinxen 2024-05-04 22:53:28 UTC
Taking this review

General comments:

- Spec file was generated with rust2rpm
- One dependency version was relaxed to allow newer versions --> OK

APPROVED

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

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



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

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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0",
     "MIT License". 26 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/rust-
     dsa/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/share/cargo/registry, /usr/share/cargo,
     /usr, /usr/share
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr, /usr/share/cargo,
     /usr/share/cargo/registry, /usr/share
[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 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 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:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust-
     dsa-devel , rust-dsa+default-devel , rust-dsa+std-devel
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: 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]: 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 all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: rust-dsa-devel-0.6.3-1.fc41.noarch.rpm
          rust-dsa+default-devel-0.6.3-1.fc41.noarch.rpm
          rust-dsa+std-devel-0.6.3-1.fc41.noarch.rpm
          rust-dsa-0.6.3-1.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/tmpox02vtoa')]
checks: 32, packages: 4

rust-dsa+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
rust-dsa+std-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 17 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "rust-dsa+default-devel".
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "rust-dsa+std-devel".
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "rust-dsa-devel".
There are no files to process nor additional arguments.
Nothing to do, aborting.
============================ 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: 3

 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s



Source checksums
----------------
https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/dsa/0.6.3/download#/dsa-0.6.3.crate :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 48bc224a9084ad760195584ce5abb3c2c34a225fa312a128ad245a6b412b7689
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 48bc224a9084ad760195584ce5abb3c2c34a225fa312a128ad245a6b412b7689


Requires
--------
rust-dsa-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    (crate(digest/default) >= 0.10.0 with crate(digest/default) < 0.11.0~)
    (crate(num-bigint-dig) >= 0.8.0 with crate(num-bigint-dig) < 0.9.0~)
    (crate(num-bigint-dig/prime) >= 0.8.0 with crate(num-bigint-dig/prime) < 0.9.0~)
    (crate(num-bigint-dig/rand) >= 0.8.0 with crate(num-bigint-dig/rand) < 0.9.0~)
    (crate(num-bigint-dig/zeroize) >= 0.8.0 with crate(num-bigint-dig/zeroize) < 0.9.0~)
    (crate(num-traits) >= 0.2.0 with crate(num-traits) < 0.3.0~)
    (crate(pkcs8) >= 0.10.0 with crate(pkcs8) < 0.11.0~)
    (crate(pkcs8/alloc) >= 0.10.0 with crate(pkcs8/alloc) < 0.11.0~)
    (crate(rfc6979/default) >= 0.4.0 with crate(rfc6979/default) < 0.5.0~)
    (crate(sha2) >= 0.10.0 with crate(sha2) < 0.11.0~)
    (crate(signature) >= 2.0.0 with crate(signature) < 3.0.0~)
    (crate(signature/alloc) >= 2.0.0 with crate(signature/alloc) < 3.0.0~)
    (crate(signature/digest) >= 2.0.0 with crate(signature/digest) < 3.0.0~)
    (crate(signature/rand_core) >= 2.0.0 with crate(signature/rand_core) < 3.0.0~)
    (crate(zeroize) >= 1.0.0 with crate(zeroize) < 2.0.0~)
    cargo
    rust

rust-dsa+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cargo
    crate(dsa)

rust-dsa+std-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cargo
    crate(dsa)



Provides
--------
rust-dsa-devel:
    crate(dsa)
    rust-dsa-devel

rust-dsa+default-devel:
    crate(dsa/default)
    rust-dsa+default-devel

rust-dsa+std-devel:
    crate(dsa/std)
    rust-dsa+std-devel



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name rust-dsa --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Perl, R, Ocaml, Haskell, Java, Python, C/C++, PHP, SugarActivity, fonts
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comment 4 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2024-05-06 17:03:19 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-dsa

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2024-05-06 18:17:36 UTC
FEDORA-2024-08afc10542 (rust-chacha20-0.9.1-1.fc41, rust-curve25519-dalek-4.1.2-2.fc41, and 2 more) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-08afc10542

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2024-05-06 19:03:07 UTC
FEDORA-2024-08afc10542 (rust-chacha20-0.9.1-1.fc41, rust-curve25519-dalek-4.1.2-2.fc41, and 2 more) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


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