Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://pemensik.fedorapeople.org/srpm/cryptopant.spec SRPM URL: https://pemensik.fedorapeople.org/srpm/cryptopant-1.3.2-1.fc44.src.rpm Description: cryptopANT is a library for IP address anonymization. It implements a widely used prefix-preserving technique known as "cryptopan". This is ANT's project implementation of this technique for anonymization of ipv4 and ipv6 addresses. Fedora Account System Username: pemensik
Scratch build did timeout: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=139655597
Issues: - Package does not install a LICENSE file. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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. [-]: 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. NOTE: The sources do not include a separate LICENSE file. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. NOTE: License is in the source file top comments. [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. NOTE: There's no %doc section. [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. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines NOTE: See other [!]. [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]: 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 0 bytes in 0 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: Upstream does not publish signatures. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. NOTE: See https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=139655597 [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. NOTE: There's only the .so library, no original files from the source are installed. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [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 Rpmlint ------- Checking: cryptopant-1.3.2-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm cryptopant-devel-1.3.2-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm cryptopant-utils-1.3.2-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm cryptopant-1.3.2-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpx_90aha2')] checks: 32, packages: 4 cryptopant.src: E: spelling-error ('anonymization', 'Summary(en_US) anonymization -> unionization, canonization, minimization') cryptopant.src: E: spelling-error ('anonymization', '%description -l en_US anonymization -> unionization, canonization, minimization') cryptopant.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('anonymization', 'Summary(en_US) anonymization -> unionization, canonization, minimization') cryptopant.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('anonymization', '%description -l en_US anonymization -> unionization, canonization, minimization') cryptopant-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('anonymization', 'Summary(en_US) anonymization -> unionization, canonization, minimization') cryptopant-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('anonymization', '%description -l en_US anonymization -> unionization, canonization, minimization') cryptopant-utils.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('anonymization', 'Summary(en_US) anonymization -> unionization, canonization, minimization') cryptopant-utils.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('anonymization', '%description -l en_US anonymization -> unionization, canonization, minimization') cryptopant-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary scramble_ips cryptopant.x86_64: W: no-documentation cryptopant-utils.x86_64: W: no-documentation cryptopant-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/cryptopANT.h cryptopant.x86_64: W: empty-%postun cryptopant.x86_64: W: empty-%post 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 9 errors, 5 warnings, 16 filtered, 9 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: cryptopant-utils-debuginfo-1.3.2-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm cryptopant-debuginfo-1.3.2-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpjk5nnpwe')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 16 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 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: 5 cryptopant.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('anonymization', 'Summary(en_US) anonymization -> randomization, canonization, minimization') cryptopant.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('anonymization', '%description -l en_US anonymization -> randomization, canonization, minimization') cryptopant-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('anonymization', 'Summary(en_US) anonymization -> randomization, canonization, minimization') cryptopant-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('anonymization', '%description -l en_US anonymization -> randomization, canonization, minimization') cryptopant-utils.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('anonymization', 'Summary(en_US) anonymization -> randomization, canonization, minimization') cryptopant-utils.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('anonymization', '%description -l en_US anonymization -> randomization, canonization, minimization') cryptopant-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary scramble_ips cryptopant.x86_64: W: no-documentation cryptopant-utils.x86_64: W: no-documentation cryptopant-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/cryptopANT.h cryptopant.x86_64: W: empty-%postun cryptopant.x86_64: W: empty-%post 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 5 warnings, 31 filtered, 7 badness; has taken 0.5 s Source checksums ---------------- http://ant.isi.edu/software/cryptopANT/cryptopANT-1.3.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 049b98da835a356230259e68684165fbfa08bf6540424a6f4d815660ae55f278 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 049b98da835a356230259e68684165fbfa08bf6540424a6f4d815660ae55f278 Requires -------- cryptopant (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) cryptopant-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cryptopant(x86-64) libcryptopANT.so.1()(64bit) openssl-devel cryptopant-utils (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cryptopant(x86-64) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcryptopANT.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- cryptopant: cryptopant cryptopant(x86-64) libcryptopANT.so.1()(64bit) libcryptopant1(x86-64) cryptopant-devel: cryptopant-devel cryptopant-devel(x86-64) cryptopant-utils: cryptopant-utils cryptopant-utils(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/fvorobev/Work/reviews/2418607-cryptopant/srpm/cryptopant.spec 2025-12-03 18:02:38.826816826 +0100 +++ /home/fvorobev/Work/reviews/2418607-cryptopant/srpm-unpacked/cryptopant.spec 2025-12-03 01:00:00.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.8.3) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + %global sover 1 %global libname libcryptopant%{sover} @@ -92,3 +102,6 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Wed Dec 03 2025 John Doe <packager> - 1.3.2-1 +- Uncommitted changes +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2418607 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Ocaml, SugarActivity, Python, Haskell, fonts, Java, PHP, Perl, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
I have requested adding LICENSE file, but upstream has no issue tracker, not even public mailing list. I have no way to add link to the request. That was sent only privately.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9863306 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2418607-cryptopant/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09863306-cryptopant/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.
Updated case to be lowercase by default. Spec URL: https://pemensik.fedorapeople.org/srpm/cryptopant.spec SRPM URL: https://pemensik.fedorapeople.org/srpm/cryptopant-1.3.2-2.fc44.src.rpm Provides also uppercase to be compatible with upstream preferred way.
Created attachment 2117390 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9863306 to 9865338
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9865338 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2418607-cryptopant/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09865338-cryptopant/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.
One 'SHOULD' item seems to be [!], but not much can be done about it since upstream does not provide a separate LICENSE file. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [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 1599 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. NOTE: Upstream does not provide its own license text file and instead leaves the license in the top comments of the source files. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. NOTE: Upstream does not provide signatures. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag NOTE: The LICENSE source from the GNU servers failed to download when I used fedora-review but it seems it was an isolated network incident on my machine. Automated copr build seemed to have downloaded the file just fine, hence [x]. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: cryptopant-1.3.2-2.fc44.x86_64.rpm cryptopant-devel-1.3.2-2.fc44.x86_64.rpm cryptopant-utils-1.3.2-2.fc44.x86_64.rpm cryptopant-1.3.2-2.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpsclag3i7')] checks: 32, packages: 4 cryptopant.src: E: spelling-error ('anonymization', 'Summary(en_US) anonymization -> unionization, canonization, minimization') cryptopant.src: E: spelling-error ('anonymization', '%description -l en_US anonymization -> unionization, canonization, minimization') cryptopant.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('anonymization', 'Summary(en_US) anonymization -> unionization, canonization, minimization') cryptopant.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('anonymization', '%description -l en_US anonymization -> unionization, canonization, minimization') cryptopant-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('anonymization', 'Summary(en_US) anonymization -> unionization, canonization, minimization') cryptopant-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('anonymization', '%description -l en_US anonymization -> unionization, canonization, minimization') cryptopant-utils.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('anonymization', 'Summary(en_US) anonymization -> unionization, canonization, minimization') cryptopant-utils.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('anonymization', '%description -l en_US anonymization -> unionization, canonization, minimization') cryptopant.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog cryptopant.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog cryptopant-devel.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog cryptopant-utils.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog cryptopant-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary scramble_ips cryptopant-utils.x86_64: W: no-documentation cryptopant-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/cryptopANT.h cryptopant.x86_64: W: empty-%postun cryptopant.x86_64: W: empty-%post 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 9 errors, 8 warnings, 20 filtered, 9 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: cryptopant-utils-debuginfo-1.3.2-2.fc44.x86_64.rpm cryptopant-debuginfo-1.3.2-2.fc44.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpiwwm3p4m')] checks: 32, packages: 2 cryptopant-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog cryptopant-utils-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 16 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 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: 5 cryptopant.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('anonymization', 'Summary(en_US) anonymization -> randomization, canonization, minimization') cryptopant.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('anonymization', '%description -l en_US anonymization -> randomization, canonization, minimization') cryptopant-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('anonymization', 'Summary(en_US) anonymization -> randomization, canonization, minimization') cryptopant-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('anonymization', '%description -l en_US anonymization -> randomization, canonization, minimization') cryptopant-utils.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('anonymization', 'Summary(en_US) anonymization -> randomization, canonization, minimization') cryptopant-utils.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('anonymization', '%description -l en_US anonymization -> randomization, canonization, minimization') cryptopant.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog cryptopant-devel.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog cryptopant-utils.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog cryptopant-utils-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog cryptopant-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog cryptopant-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary scramble_ips cryptopant-utils.x86_64: W: no-documentation cryptopant-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/cryptopANT.h cryptopant.x86_64: W: empty-%postun cryptopant.x86_64: W: empty-%post 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 9 warnings, 35 filtered, 7 badness; has taken 0.5 s Source checksums ---------------- http://ant.isi.edu/software/cryptopANT/cryptopANT-1.3.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 049b98da835a356230259e68684165fbfa08bf6540424a6f4d815660ae55f278 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 049b98da835a356230259e68684165fbfa08bf6540424a6f4d815660ae55f278 Requires -------- cryptopant (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) cryptopant-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cryptopant(x86-64) libcryptopANT.so.1()(64bit) openssl-devel cryptopant-utils (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cryptopant(x86-64) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcryptopANT.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- cryptopant: cryptopANT(x86-64) cryptopant cryptopant(x86-64) libcryptopANT.so.1()(64bit) libcryptopant1(x86-64) cryptopant-devel: cryptopANT-devel(x86-64) cryptopant-devel cryptopant-devel(x86-64) cryptopant-utils: cryptopant-utils cryptopant-utils(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2418607 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: fonts, PHP, Haskell, SugarActivity, R, Ocaml, Python, Java, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Fedor, thanks for the review, some more minor things spotted: > Group: System/Libraries RPM groups are obsoleted for a long time. > Provides: %{libname}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} Why to complicate things with aliases? RPM autodeps should handle it correctly. > Provides: %{upname}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} Why this? If cryptoANT is the preferred name it should be named this way. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_case_sensitivity If it isn't preferred why to complicate things with aliases? > %post > %{?ldconfig} > > > %postun > %{?ldconfig} ldconfig scriptlets are obsoleted for a long time. If you aren't packaging for older distros it doesn't make sense to include them in the new package. > * Thu Dec 04 2025 Petr Menšík <pemensik> No version in the changelog. > cryptopant-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/cryptopANT.h You may fix it or at least open upstream ticket. Package builds OK on all supported arches.
Upstream has no tickets, has no public repository. It does not even have a mailing list dnsmasq or glibc has. But I have sent some patches by mail. I have noticed wrong FSF address too, but updating it is not straight forward. I will remove ldconfig and groups for fedora, I think rhel8 needs it, but I do not plan requesting it.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cryptopant
FEDORA-2025-e8ae70a21f (cryptopant-1.3.2-2.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-e8ae70a21f
FEDORA-2025-e8ae70a21f (cryptopant-1.3.2-2.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.