Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/redwax/rt/srpm-builds/08706542/redwax-tool.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/redwax/rt/srpm-builds/08706542/redwax-tool-0.9.9-1.el8.src.rpm Description: The redwax tool allows certificates and keys in a range of formats to be read, searched for, and converted into other formats as needed by common services. Fedora Account System Username: minfrin
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8730206 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2350111-redwax-tool/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08730206-redwax-tool/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://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/minfrin/minfrin-test/srpm-builds/08731248/redwax-tool.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/minfrin/minfrin-test/srpm-builds/08731248/redwax-tool-0.9.9-2.el9.src.rpm Description: The redwax tool allows certificates and keys in a range of formats to be read, searched for, and converted into other formats as needed by common services. Fedora Account System Username: minfrin
Created attachment 2079016 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8730206 to 8731250
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8731250 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2350111-redwax-tool/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08731250-redwax-tool/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://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/minfrin/minfrin-test/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/08955110-redwax-tool/redwax-tool.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/minfrin/minfrin-test/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/08955110-redwax-tool/redwax-tool-0.9.9-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: The redwax tool allows certificates and keys in a range of formats to be read, searched for, and converted into other formats as needed by common services. Fedora Account System Username: minfrin
Created attachment 2086665 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8731250 to 8955126
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8955126 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2350111-redwax-tool/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08955126-redwax-tool/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/redwax-tool/diff.txt Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/minfrin/minfrin-test/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08955140-redwax-tool/redwax-tool.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/minfrin/minfrin-test/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08955140-redwax-tool/redwax-tool-0.9.9-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: The redwax tool allows certificates and keys in a range of formats to be read, searched for, and converted into other formats as needed by common services. Fedora Account System Username: minfrin
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8955162 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2350111-redwax-tool/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08955162-redwax-tool/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.
The URLs in comment 8 both return HTTP 404. Do you still want a review of this package?
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/redwax/rt/fedora-rawhide-s390x/09245334-redwax-tool/redwax-tool.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/redwax/rt/fedora-rawhide-s390x/09245334-redwax-tool/redwax-tool-1.0.0-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: The redwax tool allows certificates and keys in a range of formats to be read, searched for, and converted into other formats as needed by common services. Fedora Account System Username: minfrin
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #10) > The URLs in comment 8 both return HTTP 404. Do you still want a review of > this package? Yes please. I just updated the version v1.0.0.
I will take this review.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues ====== The URL given in the spec file, https://redwax.eu/rs/, does not work for me. DNS can't resolve the name redwax.eu. Do you know what's going on? (See the first SHOULD item below.) There is no changelog entry for version 1.0.0. I encourage you to use %autorelease and %autochangelog, which prevents such things from happening. See https://docs.pagure.org/fedora-infra.rpmautospec/. I'm curious why the gpgverify step is commented out. Can you comment on that? FYI, there is an RPM macro %bash_completions_dir which you could use for brevity. See /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.shell-completions. Is there any possibility of including a %check script that does something simple, such as convert a certificate from one format to another? Just something to verify the program runs at all. A scratch build (https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=135087518) shows that the package fails to build on 32-bit x86, because apr_time_t and time_t are not the same size. That is okay, as we don't want to add more 32-bit x86 packages anyway. Please add something like this to your spec file: # See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval ExcludeArch: %{ix86} ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [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]: 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. [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", "FSF All Permissive License", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) and/or GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "Apache License 2.0", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "X11 License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) and/or GNU General Public License, Version 2", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention)". 9 files have unknown license. [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. [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. [!]: 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 7000 bytes in 3 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source2: https://source.redwax.eu/svn/dist/rt/keys/KEYS, Source1: https://archive.redwax.eu/dist/rt/redwax-tool-1.0.0/redwax- tool-1.0.0.tar.bz2.asc, Source0: https://archive.redwax.eu/dist/rt/redwax-tool-1.0.0/redwax- tool-1.0.0.tar.bz2 See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/SourceURL/ [-]: 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. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [!]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify occurs outside of %prep. [ ]: 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]: 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]: 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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: redwax-tool-1.0.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm redwax-tool-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/tmp0eumssfc')] checks: 32, packages: 2 redwax-tool.spec: W: no-%check-section redwax-tool.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/bin/redwax-tool redwax-tool.spec:32: W: macro-in-comment %{gpgverify} redwax-tool.spec:32: W: macro-in-comment %{SOURCE2} redwax-tool.spec:32: W: macro-in-comment %{SOURCE1} redwax-tool.spec:32: W: macro-in-comment %{SOURCE0} redwax-tool.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.9.9-1 ['1.0.0-1.fc43', '1.0.0-1'] 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings, 7 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: redwax-tool-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/tmpbk1r0y10')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 6 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 redwax-tool.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/bin/redwax-tool redwax-tool.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.9.9-1 ['1.0.0-1.fc43', '1.0.0-1'] 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 9 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.2 s Requires -------- redwax-tool (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libapr-1.so.0()(64bit) libaprutil-1.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libical.so.3()(64bit) libldns.so.3()(64bit) libnspr4.so()(64bit) libnss3.so()(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.12.5)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.2)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.3)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.4)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.5)(64bit) libp11-kit.so.0()(64bit) libp11-kit.so.0(LIBP11_KIT_1.0)(64bit) libsmime3.so()(64bit) libsmime3.so(NSS_3.4)(64bit) libssl.so.3()(64bit) libssl.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libunbound.so.8()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- redwax-tool: redwax-tool redwax-tool(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2350111 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, Java, Ocaml, SugarActivity, R, PHP, fonts, Haskell, Python, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #14) > The URL given in the spec file, https://redwax.eu/rs/, does not work for me. > DNS can't resolve the name redwax.eu. Do you know what's going on? (See the > first SHOULD item below.) Perfect timing - we're currently experiencing a DNS outage, I am chasing. > There is no changelog entry for version 1.0.0. I encourage you to use > %autorelease and %autochangelog, which prevents such things from happening. > See https://docs.pagure.org/fedora-infra.rpmautospec/. I have enabled autorelease, alas autochangelog appears to be git only (our git is a mirror, the primary is svn). > I'm curious why the gpgverify step is commented out. Can you comment on > that? I've commented that back in. > FYI, there is an RPM macro %bash_completions_dir which you could use for > brevity. See /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.shell-completions. This is fixed. > Is there any possibility of including a %check script that does something > simple, such as convert a certificate from one format to another? Just > something to verify the program runs at all. I've added a %check that verifies the certificates for redwax.eu by way of example. > A scratch build > (https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=135087518) > shows that the package fails to build on 32-bit x86, because apr_time_t and > time_t are not the same size. That is okay, as we don't want to add more > 32-bit x86 packages anyway. Please add something like this to your spec > file: > > # See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval > ExcludeArch: %{ix86} This is done.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/minfrin/minfrin-test/fedora-rawhide-s390x/09297410-redwax-tool/redwax-tool.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/minfrin/minfrin-test/fedora-rawhide-s390x/09297410-redwax-tool/redwax-tool-1.0.0-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: The redwax tool allows certificates and keys in a range of formats to be read, searched for, and converted into other formats as needed by common services. Fedora Account System Username: minfrin
(In reply to Graham Leggett from comment #15) > Perfect timing - we're currently experiencing a DNS outage, I am chasing. Just like demos always work great in practice, and then you stand up in front of the real audience... :-) > I have enabled autorelease, alas autochangelog appears to be git only (our > git is a mirror, the primary is svn). I see. In that case, it is probably best not to use %autorelease, since it may get out of sync with the latest changelog entry. Due to the ongoing DNS outage, I can't verify that the sources match upstream, but since you ARE upstream, that doesn't worry me enough to hold up the review. This package is APPROVED.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/redwax-tool
Note that whilst packages for Rawhide are published automatically, the builds for stable distributions (f41, f42 at the moment) need to have updates submitted via https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/ (or using "fedpkg update").