Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-sequoia-keystore-server.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-sequoia-keystore-server-0.2.0-1.fc42.src.rpm Description: Sequoia keystore daemon. Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=130698958
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8813287 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2354574-rust-sequoia-keystore-server/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08813287-rust-sequoia-keystore-server/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 package is APPROVED; please update the License field and associated comment on import, and consider adding a little more detail to the patch comment for adjusting the default features to switch from nettle to OpenSSL. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated The spec file was generated with rust2rpm, simplifying the review. I noted the following modifications: The license file was patched in from the upstream repository. This is done correctly (including using a versioned source URL, citing an upstream pull request, and properly installing and listing the license file), and is necessary to do downstream until upstream issues a new release with the fix. ---- A Cargo.toml metadata patch is present. This is self-explanatory and obviously belongs downstream-only: * drop features for unsupported crypto backends However, it wouldn’t hurt to clarify this: * switch crypto backend from Nettle to OpenSSL Especially since we *do* have rust-nettle in Fedora, it would be helpful to very briefly summarize why we need to prefer the OpenSSL backend here. ---- The executable is moved from /usr/bin to /usr/libexecdir. This is appropriate for an executable designed to be called by other programs, https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_libexecdir, and it seems appropriate to do this downstream-only since I can’t think of any way to handle it directly in Cargo.toml. While the guidelines say, “Packagers are highly encouraged to store libexecdir files in a package-specific subdirectory of %{_libexecdir}, such as %{_libexecdir}/%{name},” I think it is acceptable to install directly into /usr/libexecdir in this case given that there is only one executable and its name is sufficiently unique. ---- The License expression properly incorporates the output of %{cargo_license_summary}. However, the dependency tree has shifted since this was submitted for review, so please update both the comment and the License field on import. - (MIT OR Apache-2.0 OR Zlib) and (Zlib OR Apache-2.0 OR MIT) are no longer present - Unicode-3.0 is now present ---- There is an rpmlint message about the LGPL 2.0 license notice and text containing an obsolete FSF address. sequoia-keystore-server.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/sequoia-keystore-server/LICENSE.txt I filed a PR upstream to fix this, https://gitlab.com/sequoia-pgp/sequoia-keystore/-/merge_requests/115; I have had good luck in getting similar PR’s merged so far. This is not a serious problem, and it should not be applied as a downstream patch until/unless upstream merges the PR; it makes sense to just wait for the change to appear in the next upstream release. ===== MUST items ===== 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". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2354574-rust- sequoia-keystore-server/licensecheck.txt [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]: 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 1321 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [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). [?]: Package functions as described. The package properly attempts to build and run tests, but none are available. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. License file is properly and necessarily patched in from upstream VCS. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. The switch from nettle to OpenSSL could use a brief explanation. [-]: 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. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=132969564 [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. The package properly attempts to build and run tests, but none are available. [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 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: sequoia-keystore-server-0.2.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm rust-sequoia-keystore-server-0.2.0-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-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/tmp74t_p8lm')] checks: 32, packages: 2 sequoia-keystore-server.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/sequoia-keystore-server/LICENSE.txt 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ 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 checks: 32, packages: 1 sequoia-keystore-server.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/sequoia-keystore-server/LICENSE.txt 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.com/sequoia-pgp/sequoia-keystore/-/raw/server/v0.2.0/LICENSE.txt : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7a9b2b9d24e0844aaef27c4c47ecbe65437fefac6da5753db029e65efaefc6c1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7a9b2b9d24e0844aaef27c4c47ecbe65437fefac6da5753db029e65efaefc6c1 https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/sequoia-keystore-server/0.2.0/download#/sequoia-keystore-server-0.2.0.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5b2105d5a55a30634595c18538959651153de678e0ea64ed495c5b1e79ffae80 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5b2105d5a55a30634595c18538959651153de678e0ea64ed495c5b1e79ffae80 Requires -------- sequoia-keystore-server (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libssl.so.3()(64bit) libssl.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- sequoia-keystore-server: sequoia-keystore-server sequoia-keystore-server(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2354574 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Python, fonts, Perl, C/C++, R, PHP, Haskell, Java, Ocaml, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Thank you for the review! I've updated the License tag and made the Cargo.toml patch comment a bit more explicit.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-sequoia-keystore-server
Imported and built: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-b6722a144b