Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/sztp-client.spec SRPM URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/sztp-client-0-0.1.20251214git2a17708.fc44.src.rpm Description: Go implementation of a Secure Zero Touch Provisioning client, designed to automate the secure onboarding and provisioning of devices such as computers, DPUs, and network equipment. It communicates with an SZTP bootstrap server using mutual TLS authentication and supports secure device identity verification and configuration delivery. Fedora Account System Username: robert
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10162066 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2441999-sztp-client/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10162066-sztp-client/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.
Please note that this is a practise review as part of my packagers sponsorship and should not be taken particularly seriously. The only change I would request here is the license issue - the rest look good to me with the caveats that my knowledge here is quite limited. Note that the license in the specfile contradicts the license upstream. The specfile claims that it's licensed under a combination of permissive licenses, while upstream is purely Apache-2.0. I'm unsure on whether the version in this case is supposed to include a snapshot caret, since there has never been a valid version published. Note that the upstream appears unmaintained, not that this is against the packaging rules to my knowledge. I don't have an SZTP server on hand, so I can't really validate that this works. Installing and running the package's `--help` seems to work as expected, and the CLI args seem to work. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/licenses/sztp-client See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files ===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [-]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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 3860 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. [-]: 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. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: %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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: sztp-client-0-0.1.20251214git2a17708.fc46.x86_64.rpm sztp-client-0-0.1.20251214git2a17708.fc46.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/tmpxrxuxy3t')] checks: 32, packages: 2 sztp-client.src: E: spelling-error ('onboarding', '%description -l en_US onboarding -> on boarding, on-boarding') sztp-client.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('onboarding', '%description -l en_US onboarding -> on boarding, on-boarding') sztp-client.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sztp-client sztp-client.spec:46: W: macro-in-comment %{gobuilddir} sztp-client.spec:46: W: macro-in-comment %{goipath} sztp-client.spec: W: invalid-url Source1: sztp-client-2a17708512aa425eb1132937859031996e16fc3f-vendor.tar.bz2 sztp-client.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0-0.1 ['0-0.1.20251214git2a17708.fc46', '0-0.1.20251214git2a17708'] sztp-client.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/sztp-client/vendor/modules.txt /usr/share/licenses/sztp-client/modules.txt 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings, 12 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 3.9 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: sztp-client-debuginfo-0-0.1.20251214git2a17708.fc46.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/tmp4fgn7xap')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 3.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.10.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.15/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: 33, packages: 2 sztp-client.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/sztp-client /lib64/libresolv.so.2 sztp-client.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('onboarding', '%description -l en_US onboarding -> on boarding, on-boarding') sztp-client.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sztp-client sztp-client.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0-0.1 ['0-0.1.20251214git2a17708.fc46', '0-0.1.20251214git2a17708'] sztp-client.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/sztp-client/vendor/modules.txt /usr/share/licenses/sztp-client/modules.txt 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings, 14 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 2.2 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/fl-sztp/sztp-client/archive/2a17708512aa425eb1132937859031996e16fc3f/sztp-client-2a17708512aa425eb1132937859031996e16fc3f.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7b81d3cc97902d3b2ddb9600373a9f822755aeb0e0c221a0584818943d0b5f0d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7b81d3cc97902d3b2ddb9600373a9f822755aeb0e0c221a0584818943d0b5f0d Requires -------- sztp-client (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libresolv.so.2()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- sztp-client: bundled(golang(github.com/StackExchange/wmi)) bundled(golang(github.com/github/smimesign)) bundled(golang(github.com/go-ini/ini)) bundled(golang(github.com/go-ole/go-ole)) bundled(golang(github.com/insomniacslk/dhcp)) bundled(golang(github.com/jaypipes/ghw)) bundled(golang(github.com/jaypipes/pcidb)) bundled(golang(github.com/josharian/native)) bundled(golang(github.com/kr/text)) bundled(golang(github.com/mdlayher/packet)) bundled(golang(github.com/mdlayher/socket)) bundled(golang(github.com/mitchellh/go-homedir)) bundled(golang(github.com/pierrec/lz4/v4)) bundled(golang(github.com/pkg/errors)) bundled(golang(github.com/sirupsen/logrus)) bundled(golang(github.com/u-root/uio)) bundled(golang(golang.org/x/net)) bundled(golang(golang.org/x/sync)) bundled(golang(golang.org/x/sys)) bundled(golang(gopkg.in/yaml.v3)) bundled(golang(howett.net/plist)) sztp-client sztp-client(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/phoebe/Projects/public/2441999-sztp-client/srpm/sztp-client.spec 2026-08-20 08:54:00.922266947 +0100 +++ /home/phoebe/Projects/public/2441999-sztp-client/srpm-unpacked/sztp-client.spec 2025-12-14 00:00:00.000000000 +0000 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.8.1) +## 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 + %bcond check 1 @@ -54,3 +64,6 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Sun Dec 14 2025 John Doe <packager> - 0-0.1 +- Uncommitted changes +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2441999 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, C/C++, Python, SugarActivity, Java, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, fonts, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
(In reply to Phoebe Harris from comment #2) > The only change I would request here is the license issue - the rest look > good to me with the caveats that my knowledge here is quite limited. > > Note that the license in the specfile contradicts the license upstream. The > specfile claims that it's licensed under a combination of permissive > licenses, while upstream is purely Apache-2.0. Please note that this sztp-client packaging bundles/vendors some dependent libraries in accordance with current Fedora Packaging guidelines, see also: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Golang/#_vendored_dependencies Bundling/vendoring dependent libraries leads to more licenses here instead of just the one of sztp-client itself.
Right, my bad. When I wrote that comment I hadn't fully appreciated that deps were bundled.