Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tylerfanelli/libnsm-rpm/refs/heads/main/libnsm.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/tylerfanelli/libnsm-rpm/raw/refs/heads/main/libnsm-0.5.0-2.fc45.src.rpm Description: C library for AWS Nitro Secure Module (NSM) API Fedora Account System Username: tfanelli
[fedora-review-service-build]
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10280949 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2453288-libnsm/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10280949-libnsm/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ - libnsm : /usr/include/nsm.h Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages - Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages - Package has .a files: libnsm. Illegal package name: libnsm. Does not provide -static: libnsm. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries 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.
Glancing at the spec file, I think you should consult https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_shared_libraries. Shared libraries MUST be versioned via SONAME; no unversioned shared libraries can be installed in the default linker path. We do have a few Rust-based shared libraries. I can provide some good examples using cargo-c, e.g. rust-rav1e: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-rav1e/blob/d9a574d39b3cebea0d1b05d64d30d51a0d9eb92a/f/rust-rav1e.spec or rust-rustc-demangle-capi, where cargo-c support had to be patched in downstream: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-rustc-demangle-capi/blob/54e45c7b8e3c168b139a1f877759d1485a26d78f/f/rust-rustc-demangle-capi.spec See also: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Rust/#_building_shared_libraries_with_cargo_c This is probably the easiest way for you to make a versioned shared library. I am not sure what it would take to make it happen without cargo-c. You might know more about this than I do. We also don’t package static (.a) libraries at all unless there’s a technical reason why we *need* them and can’t use the shared library: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries If the static library is needed, I think it ought to be justified in a spec-file comment, like: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libfplll/blob/83e803542166d97d3255b22c473bca0cb2f25a6c/f/libfplll.spec#_167 The fact that %build is empty is a little weird, but I haven’t investigated closely. Currently, you have everything in the base package’s %files list, and aren’t actually producing a binary -devel package. The versioned shared library (once you have one) goes in the base package: %{_libdir}/libnsm.so.0.5{,.*} The unversioned shared-library symbolic link, the header, and the pkgconfig file go in the -devel subpackage (%files devel): %{_includedir}/nsm.h %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/libnsm.pc %{_libdir}/libnsm.so The static library shouldn’t be shipped, if possible. If you must ship it, it needs to go in a -static subpackage that Requires the -devel package with a fully-versioned dependency, like https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_requiring_base_package. %{_libdir}/libnsm.a
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tylerfanelli/libnsm-rpm/refs/heads/main/libnsm.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/tylerfanelli/libnsm-rpm/raw/refs/heads/main/libnsm-0.5.1-2.fc45.src.rpm Description: C library for AWS Nitro Secure Module (NSM) API Fedora Account System Username: tfanelli
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10428306 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2453288-libnsm/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10428306-libnsm/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ - Static executables found: libnsm.so.0.5.1 Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_statically_linking_executables 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.
Thanks Ben, I've made updates to both the upstream repository and package request to reflect the changes you've asked for. Would you mind re-reviewing?
Hmm, the basic idea here looks reasonable, and the packaged static library seems to be correctly handled and adequatedly justified, but something is weird about the shared library. The fedora-review program complains that it’s statically linked, and "file rpms-unpacked/libnsm-0.5.1-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm/usr/lib64/libnsm.so.0.5.1" gives "rpms-unpacked/libnsm-0.5.1-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm/usr/lib64/libnsm.so.0.5.1: ELF 64-bit LSB pie executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), statically linked, BuildID[sha1]=0ba89214768e51781e4ba9331cbb8f3311dce22b, stripped", where a more typical shared library might look like "/usr/lib64/libz.so.1.3.1.zlib-ng: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, BuildID[sha1]=c03522d8b3fa0325563dfbddbf7564d9f02d60ef, stripped". I thought this might have to do with the STATIC=1 Makefile variable, but I can’t seem to tell what that actually does, and rebuilding without it doesn’t seem to make any difference. Any chance you’re able to explain to me what I’m looking at?
It seems like you shouldn’t have to do this manually: BuildRequires: (crate(libc/default) >= 0.2.0 with crate(libc/default) < 0.3.0~) It looks like the package still builds without this line.
(In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #7) > Hmm, the basic idea here looks reasonable, and the packaged static library > seems to be correctly handled and adequatedly justified, but something is > weird about the shared library. The fedora-review program complains that > it’s statically linked, and "file > rpms-unpacked/libnsm-0.5.1-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm/usr/lib64/libnsm.so.0.5.1" > gives > "rpms-unpacked/libnsm-0.5.1-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm/usr/lib64/libnsm.so.0.5.1: ELF > 64-bit LSB pie executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), statically linked, > BuildID[sha1]=0ba89214768e51781e4ba9331cbb8f3311dce22b, stripped", where a > more typical shared library might look like > "/usr/lib64/libz.so.1.3.1.zlib-ng: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64, > version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, > BuildID[sha1]=c03522d8b3fa0325563dfbddbf7564d9f02d60ef, stripped". > > Any chance you’re able to explain to me what I’m looking at? Not really. I use rust's cdylib target to produce the shared libary. The only modification I make to the shared library is setting the soname to the API version before installing. For version 0.x.x, that would like the following: patchelf --set-soname libnsm.so.0 target/release/libnsm.so > I thought this might have to do with the STATIC=1 Makefile variable, but I can’t seem > to tell what that actually does, and rebuilding without it doesn’t seem to > make any difference. That's a relic from a previous change that isn't relevant anymore. I've removed it.
Created attachment 2140709 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10428306 to 10445532
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10445532 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2453288-libnsm/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10445532-libnsm/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ - Static executables found: libnsm.so.0.5.1 Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_statically_linking_executables 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.
(In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #7) > Hmm, the basic idea here looks reasonable, and the packaged static library > seems to be correctly handled and adequatedly justified, but something is > weird about the shared library. The fedora-review program complains that > it’s statically linked, and "file > rpms-unpacked/libnsm-0.5.1-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm/usr/lib64/libnsm.so.0.5.1" > gives > "rpms-unpacked/libnsm-0.5.1-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm/usr/lib64/libnsm.so.0.5.1: ELF > 64-bit LSB pie executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), statically linked, > BuildID[sha1]=0ba89214768e51781e4ba9331cbb8f3311dce22b, stripped", where a > more typical shared library might look like > "/usr/lib64/libz.so.1.3.1.zlib-ng: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64, > version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, > BuildID[sha1]=c03522d8b3fa0325563dfbddbf7564d9f02d60ef, stripped". I thought > this might have to do with the STATIC=1 Makefile variable, but I can’t seem > to tell what that actually does, and rebuilding without it doesn’t seem to > make any difference. > > Any chance you’re able to explain to me what I’m looking at? I've tried reproducing this locally. When examining the installed file: $ file /usr/local/lib/libnsm.so.0.5.1 /usr/local/lib/libnsm.so.0.5.1: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, BuildID[sha1]=0d736fdabec2f6f2710e6a58c4042bee007c953a, not stripped The only difference between this and your example, is "stripped" vs "not stripped". Is that relevant at all? Furthermore, it seems the build system may be doing something behind the scenes? I followed the install process as it's shown in the spec file, and cannot reproduce locally.
I've produced this scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=145426829 After installing: $ file /usr/lib64/libnsm.so.0.5.1 /usr/lib64/libnsm.so.0.5.1: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, ARM aarch64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, BuildID[sha1]=65769055f128f0c633b5b193453cc4f446aaa0a8, stripped So I'm still a bit unclear what is causing this.
(In reply to Tyler Fanelli from comment #13) > The only difference between this and your example, is "stripped" vs "not > stripped". Is that relevant at all? You should find that the shared libraries in `%{buildroot}` at the end of `%install` are “not stripped,” but then the debugging symbols are extracted to the `-debuginfo` package, so the shared libraries from the *actual RPM* are “stripped.” Does that make sense? I’ll take another look at this review request as soon as I have time. This may be one of those rare situations where I end up having to say that I can’t verify that everything is correct, but I can’t point to anything that violates packaging guidelines, and you understand what you are trying to do better than I, so I have to leave the question of correctness in your hands.
Overall, this looks basically reasonable, but you need to handle licenses of statically-linked Rust dependencies, and the shared library really doesn’t look it is actually a usable shared library. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated As described in nsm-test/README.md, the tests in nsm-test/ are designed to run in an enclave, so we can’t build and run them here. There are no doctests in the Rust sources, either. Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ OK: The library is actually written in Rust, and no C or C++ compiler is used. If we built nsm-test/src/main.cc, we would need BuildRequires: gcc-c++, since nsm-test/Makefile invokes g++, but we don’t built nsm-test/, so nothing needs to be changed here. - Package contains no static executables. Note: Static executables found: libnsm.so.0.5.1 See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_statically_linking_executables There are two potential cases of static linking here. The first is the -static subpackage, which intentionally ships a static library libnsm.a. We try to avoid this whenever possible, but this is a SHOULD, not a MUST, and the spec file contains a valid technical justification. The second is the fact that rpmlint recognizes /usr/lib64/libnsm.so.0.5.1 as statically linked. libnsm.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib64/libnsm.so.0.5.1 The package installs a statically linked binary or object file. The file command agrees: $ file rpms-unpacked/libnsm-0.5.1-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm/usr/lib64/libnsm.so.0.5.1 rpms-unpacked/libnsm-0.5.1-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm/usr/lib64/libnsm.so.0.5.1: ELF 64-bit LSB pie executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), statically linked, BuildID[sha1]=9293755a328affbf0d1ced450f19213d1b5396b1, stripped And ldd shows nothing is dynamically linked, not even libc: $ ldd rpms-unpacked/libnsm-0.5.1-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm/usr/lib64/libnsm.so.0.5.1 not a dynamic executable Comparing to a “conventional” shared library: $ file /usr/lib64/libadwaita-1.so.0 /usr/lib64/libadwaita-1.so.0: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, BuildID[sha1]=e3d7ee36a898d70049dea10aaf6f735bc4b2a6fc, stripped …and comparing to another shared library built from Rust sources without using cargo-c: $ file /usr/lib64/librpm_sequoia.so.1 /usr/lib64/librpm_sequoia.so.1: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, BuildID[sha1]=eed8c3deb7b9dcfab789fa53256c3a7b659851c4, stripped This seems weird. There is little or no configuration related to the shared library in the build system. I thought that this could be just a result of the fact that nothing in nsm-lib uses libc directly, and perhaps no part of the Rust standard library it uses does either, but: $ python3 -c 'from ctypes import cdll; cdll.LoadLibrary("rpms-unpacked/libnsm-0.5.1-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm/usr/lib64/libnsm.so.0.5.1")' Traceback (most recent call last): File "<string>", line 1, in <module> from ctypes import cdll; cdll.LoadLibrary("rpms-unpacked/libnsm-0.5.1-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm/usr/lib64/libnsm.so.0.5.1") ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ File "/usr/lib64/python3.14/ctypes/__init__.py", line 554, in LoadLibrary return self._dlltype(name) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~^^^^^^ File "/usr/lib64/python3.14/ctypes/__init__.py", line 433, in __init__ self._handle = self._load_library(name, mode, handle, winmode) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ File "/usr/lib64/python3.14/ctypes/__init__.py", line 475, in _load_library return _dlopen(name, mode) OSError: rpms-unpacked/libnsm-0.5.1-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm/usr/lib64/libnsm.so.0.5.1: object file has no loadable segments I can’t find anything unacceptable or anything you’re clearly doing wrong here, but it really doesn’t seem like this is a usable shared library. - The rpmlint output also warns: libnsm.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libnsm.so.0.5.1 The library has no soname. However, it looks fine when I check it with objdump: $ objdump -x rpms-unpacked/libnsm-0.5.1-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm/usr/lib64/libnsm.so.0.5.1 | grep -i soname SONAME libnsm.so.0 I don’t know what to make of this, either. I suppose it means that the SONAME is there, but the file isn’t a shared library so it doesn’t matter. - Having an executable stack isn’t great, hardening-wise. I suppose this is because there is nothing that uses the hardening flags in LDFLAGS. I’m not sure what can be done about this, either. libnsm.x86_64: E: missing-PT_GNU_STACK-section /usr/lib64/libnsm.so.0.5.1 The binary lacks a PT_GNU_STACK section. This forces the dynamic linker to make the stack executable. I don’t think this necessarily blocks approval. - I see some weird warnings from objcopy while extracting debuginfo objcopy: /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: warning: allocated section `.note.gnu.build-id' not in segment objcopy: /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: warning: allocated section `.init' not in segment objcopy: /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: warning: allocated section `.plt' not in segment objcopy: /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: warning: allocated section `.text' not in segment objcopy: /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: warning: allocated section `.fini' not in segment objcopy: /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: warning: allocated section `.gnu.hash' not in segment objcopy: /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: warning: allocated section `.dynsym' not in segment objcopy: /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: warning: allocated section `.gnu.version' not in segment objcopy: /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: warning: allocated section `.gnu.version_r' not in segment objcopy: /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: warning: allocated section `.rela.dyn' not in segment objcopy: /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: warning: allocated section `.rela.plt' not in segment objcopy: /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: warning: allocated section `.rodata' not in segment objcopy: /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: warning: allocated section `.eh_frame_hdr' not in segment objcopy: /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: warning: allocated section `.eh_frame' not in segment objcopy: /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: warning: allocated section `.gcc_except_table' not in segment objcopy: /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: warning: allocated section `.note.package' not in segment objcopy: /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: warning: allocated section `.tdata' not in segment objcopy: /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: warning: allocated section `.init_array' not in segment objcopy: /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: warning: allocated section `.fini_array' not in segment objcopy: /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: warning: allocated section `.data.rel.ro' not in segment objcopy: /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: warning: allocated section `.got' not in segment objcopy: /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: warning: allocated section `.data' not in segment objcopy: /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: warning: allocated section `.dynstr' not in segment objcopy: /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: warning: allocated section `.dynamic' not in segment I don’t know what these mean, or whether they are an actual problem. - There are a couple of spelling errors in the descriptions: “containes” instead of “contains”, and “libsnm” instead of “libnsm”. - Dist tag is present. OK: fedora-review is confused by rpmautospec. - The License fields of (sub)packages containing executables built from Rust sources need to account for statically linked Rust library dependencies. At the end of %build, you can add: cd nsm-lib %{cargo_license_summary -a} %{cargo_license -a} > ../LICENSE.dependencies Then, for the base package, something like: SourceLicense: Apache-2.0 # These are the licenses of statically-linked Rust dependencies, from the # output of %%{cargo_license_summary}. # # Apache-2.0 # Apache-2.0 OR MIT # MIT # MIT OR Apache-2.0 %global additional_rust_licenses %{shrink: MIT AND (Apache-2.0 OR MIT) } License: Apache-2.0 AND %{additional_rust_licenses} For -devel: # This subpackage contains no statically linked Rust dependencies License: Apache-2.0 …and then add to %files: %license LICENSE.dependencies - You might consider: # https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval ExcludeArch: %{ix86} ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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]: 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. [!]: 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", "Apache License 2.0". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2453288-libnsm/licensecheck.txt Licenses of statically-linked Rust dependencies must be accounted for [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. -static → -devel → base (has license file) [?]: %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. [x]: 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]: 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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: libnsm-static. [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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libnsm- devel , libnsm-static [?]: 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: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=145490253 [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. There are no tests that we can run outside of an enclave. [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libnsm-0.5.1-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm libnsm-devel-0.5.1-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm libnsm-static-0.5.1-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm libnsm-0.5.1-2.fc45.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/tmperhrfw8c')] checks: 32, packages: 4 libnsm.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib64/libnsm.so.0.5.1 libnsm-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('containes', '%description -l en_US containes -> contained, contains, containers') libnsm-static.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('libsnm', '%description -l en_US libsnm -> limbless') libnsm.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libnsm.so.0.5.1 libnsm.spec: W: no-%check-section libnsm.x86_64: E: missing-PT_GNU_STACK-section /usr/lib64/libnsm.so.0.5.1 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 2 warnings, 23 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 1.1 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libnsm-debuginfo-0.5.1-2.fc45.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/tmpoqzkuyh3')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.9.0 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: 4 libnsm.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib64/libnsm.so.0.5.1 libnsm-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('containes', '%description -l en_US containes -> contained, contains, containers') libnsm-static.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('libsnm', '%description -l en_US libsnm -> limbless') libnsm.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libnsm.so.0.5.1 libnsm.x86_64: E: missing-PT_GNU_STACK-section /usr/lib64/libnsm.so.0.5.1 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 1 warnings, 24 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/aws/aws-nitro-enclaves-nsm-api/archive/v0.5.1/aws-nitro-enclaves-nsm-api-0.5.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b39fa9748db4065a7a81d840e66418f62321d717eaa2802a516d6f1f75a70cf1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b39fa9748db4065a7a81d840e66418f62321d717eaa2802a516d6f1f75a70cf1 Requires -------- libnsm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(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) rtld(GNU_HASH) libnsm-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libnsm(x86-64) libnsm.so.0()(64bit) libnsm-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libnsm-devel(x86-64) Provides -------- libnsm: libnsm libnsm(x86-64) libnsm.so.0()(64bit) libnsm-devel: libnsm-devel libnsm-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libnsm) libnsm-static: libnsm-static libnsm-static(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ben/fedora/review/2453288-libnsm/srpm/libnsm.spec 2026-05-13 12:22:56.584722841 +0100 +++ /home/ben/fedora/review/2453288-libnsm/srpm-unpacked/libnsm.spec 2026-05-11 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 = 2; + 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 crate aws-nitro-enclaves-nsm-api @@ -67,3 +77,9 @@ %changelog -%{autochangelog} +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Mon May 11 2026 Tyler Fanelli <tfanelli> - 0.5.1-2 +- Uncommitted changes + +* Mon May 11 2026 Tyler Fanelli <tfanelli> - 0.5.1-1 +- Initial commit +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2453288 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, PHP, Perl, Java, Ocaml, Haskell, Python, fonts, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tylerfanelli/libnsm-rpm/refs/heads/main/libnsm.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/tylerfanelli/libnsm-rpm/raw/refs/heads/main/libnsm-0.5.2-1.fc45.src.rpm Description: C library for AWS Nitro Secure Module (NSM) API Fedora Account System Username: tfanelli
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10808608 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2453288-libnsm/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10808608-libnsm/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ 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://raw.githubusercontent.com/tylerfanelli/libnsm-rpm/refs/heads/main/libnsm.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/tylerfanelli/libnsm-rpm/raw/refs/heads/main/libnsm-0.5.2-2.fc45.src.rpm Description: C library for AWS Nitro Secure Module (NSM) API Fedora Account System Username: tfanelli
There seems to be some problem with the following file. SRPM URL: https://github.com/tylerfanelli/libnsm-rpm/raw/refs/heads/main/libnsm-0.5.2-2.fc45.src.rpm Fetching it results in a 404 Not Found error. Please make sure the URL is correct and publicly available. --- 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.
Created attachment 2153527 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10808608 to 10808645
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10808645 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2453288-libnsm/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10808645-libnsm/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.
@code Revisiting this, I made changes upstream pertaining to how the library was built. Would you mind re-reviewing?
This is looking encouraging at a quick glance, but I think there is a mixup in the spec file: ---- Name: libnsm Version: 0.5.2 Release: %{autorelease} Summary: C library for AWS Nitro Secure Module (NSM) API License: Apache-2.0 […] %global _description %{expand: C library for Nitro Secure Module (NSM).} %description %{summary}. SourceLicense: Apache-2.0 # These are the licenses of statically-linked Rust dependencies, from the # output of %%{cargo_license_summary}. # # Apache-2.0 # Apache-2.0 OR MIT # MIT # MIT OR Apache-2.0 %global additional_rust_licenses %{shrink: MIT AND (Apache-2.0 OR MIT) } License: Apache-2.0 AND %{additional_rust_licenses} %package devel ---- I think you meant to put the SourceLicense field, the %global additional_rust_licenses, and the augmented License field where the first License field is. Currently, these are part of the base package’s description, which is clearly unintended.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10861807 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2453288-libnsm/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10861807-libnsm/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.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10861948 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2453288-libnsm/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10861948-libnsm/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.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10862147 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2453288-libnsm/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10862147-libnsm/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.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10862148 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2453288-libnsm/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10862148-libnsm/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.
@(In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #16) > Overall, this looks basically reasonable, but you need to handle licenses of > statically-linked Rust dependencies, and the shared library really doesn’t > look > it is actually a usable shared library. > > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > > As described in nsm-test/README.md, the tests in nsm-test/ are designed to > run > in an enclave, so we can’t build and run them here. There are no doctests in > the Rust sources, either. > > Issues: > ======= > - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a > BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. > Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ > > OK: The library is actually written in Rust, and no C or C++ compiler is > used. If we built nsm-test/src/main.cc, we would need BuildRequires: > gcc-c++, > since nsm-test/Makefile invokes g++, but we don’t built nsm-test/, so > nothing > needs to be changed here. > > - Package contains no static executables. > Note: Static executables found: libnsm.so.0.5.1 > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/#_statically_linking_executables > > There are two potential cases of static linking here. > > The first is the -static subpackage, which intentionally ships a static > library libnsm.a. We try to avoid this whenever possible, but this is a > SHOULD, not a MUST, and the spec file contains a valid technical > justification. > > The second is the fact that rpmlint recognizes /usr/lib64/libnsm.so.0.5.1 > as > statically linked. > > libnsm.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib64/libnsm.so.0.5.1 > The package installs a statically linked binary or object file. > > The file command agrees: > > $ file > rpms-unpacked/libnsm-0.5.1-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm/usr/lib64/libnsm.so.0.5.1 > rpms-unpacked/libnsm-0.5.1-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm/usr/lib64/libnsm.so.0.5.1: > ELF 64-bit LSB pie executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), statically linked, > BuildID[sha1]=9293755a328affbf0d1ced450f19213d1b5396b1, stripped > > And ldd shows nothing is dynamically linked, not even libc: > > $ ldd > rpms-unpacked/libnsm-0.5.1-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm/usr/lib64/libnsm.so.0.5.1 > not a dynamic executable > > Comparing to a “conventional” shared library: > > $ file /usr/lib64/libadwaita-1.so.0 > /usr/lib64/libadwaita-1.so.0: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64, > version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, > BuildID[sha1]=e3d7ee36a898d70049dea10aaf6f735bc4b2a6fc, stripped > > …and comparing to another shared library built from Rust sources without > using cargo-c: > > $ file /usr/lib64/librpm_sequoia.so.1 > /usr/lib64/librpm_sequoia.so.1: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64, > version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, > BuildID[sha1]=eed8c3deb7b9dcfab789fa53256c3a7b659851c4, stripped > > This seems weird. There is little or no configuration related to the shared > library in the build system. I thought that this could be just a result of > the fact that nothing in nsm-lib uses libc directly, and perhaps no part of > the Rust standard library it uses does either, but: > > $ python3 -c 'from ctypes import cdll; > cdll.LoadLibrary("rpms-unpacked/libnsm-0.5.1-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm/usr/lib64/ > libnsm.so.0.5.1")' > Traceback (most recent call last): > File "<string>", line 1, in <module> > from ctypes import cdll; > cdll.LoadLibrary("rpms-unpacked/libnsm-0.5.1-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm/usr/lib64/ > libnsm.so.0.5.1") > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > File "/usr/lib64/python3.14/ctypes/__init__.py", line 554, in > LoadLibrary > return self._dlltype(name) > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~^^^^^^ > File "/usr/lib64/python3.14/ctypes/__init__.py", line 433, in __init__ > self._handle = self._load_library(name, mode, handle, winmode) > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > File "/usr/lib64/python3.14/ctypes/__init__.py", line 475, in > _load_library > return _dlopen(name, mode) > OSError: > rpms-unpacked/libnsm-0.5.1-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm/usr/lib64/libnsm.so.0.5.1: > object file has no loadable segments > > I can’t find anything unacceptable or anything you’re clearly doing wrong > here, but it really doesn’t seem like this is a usable shared library. > > - The rpmlint output also warns: > > libnsm.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libnsm.so.0.5.1 > The library has no soname. > > However, it looks fine when I check it with objdump: > > $ objdump -x > rpms-unpacked/libnsm-0.5.1-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm/usr/lib64/libnsm.so.0.5.1 | > grep -i soname > SONAME libnsm.so.0 > > I don’t know what to make of this, either. I suppose it means that the > SONAME > is there, but the file isn’t a shared library so it doesn’t matter. > > - Having an executable stack isn’t great, hardening-wise. I suppose this is > because there is nothing that uses the hardening flags in LDFLAGS. I’m not > sure what can be done about this, either. > > libnsm.x86_64: E: missing-PT_GNU_STACK-section /usr/lib64/libnsm.so.0.5.1 > The binary lacks a PT_GNU_STACK section. This forces the dynamic linker > to > make the stack executable. > > I don’t think this necessarily blocks approval. > > - I see some weird warnings from objcopy while extracting debuginfo > > objcopy: > /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: > warning: allocated section `.note.gnu.build-id' not in segment > objcopy: > /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: > warning: allocated section `.init' not in segment > objcopy: > /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: > warning: allocated section `.plt' not in segment > objcopy: > /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: > warning: allocated section `.text' not in segment > objcopy: > /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: > warning: allocated section `.fini' not in segment > objcopy: > /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: > warning: allocated section `.gnu.hash' not in segment > objcopy: > /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: > warning: allocated section `.dynsym' not in segment > objcopy: > /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: > warning: allocated section `.gnu.version' not in segment > objcopy: > /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: > warning: allocated section `.gnu.version_r' not in segment > objcopy: > /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: > warning: allocated section `.rela.dyn' not in segment > objcopy: > /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: > warning: allocated section `.rela.plt' not in segment > objcopy: > /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: > warning: allocated section `.rodata' not in segment > objcopy: > /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: > warning: allocated section `.eh_frame_hdr' not in segment > objcopy: > /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: > warning: allocated section `.eh_frame' not in segment > objcopy: > /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: > warning: allocated section `.gcc_except_table' not in segment > objcopy: > /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: > warning: allocated section `.note.package' not in segment > objcopy: > /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: > warning: allocated section `.tdata' not in segment > objcopy: > /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: > warning: allocated section `.init_array' not in segment > objcopy: > /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: > warning: allocated section `.fini_array' not in segment > objcopy: > /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: > warning: allocated section `.data.rel.ro' not in segment > objcopy: > /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: > warning: allocated section `.got' not in segment > objcopy: > /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: > warning: allocated section `.data' not in segment > objcopy: > /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: > warning: allocated section `.dynstr' not in segment > objcopy: > /builddir/build/BUILD/libnsm-0.5.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/stbKzLik: > warning: allocated section `.dynamic' not in segment > > I don’t know what these mean, or whether they are an actual problem. > > - There are a couple of spelling errors in the descriptions: “containes” > instead of “contains”, and “libsnm” instead of “libnsm”. > > - Dist tag is present. > > OK: fedora-review is confused by rpmautospec. > > - The License fields of (sub)packages containing executables built from Rust > sources need to account for statically linked Rust library dependencies. > > At the end of %build, you can add: > > cd nsm-lib > %{cargo_license_summary -a} > %{cargo_license -a} > ../LICENSE.dependencies > > Then, for the base package, something like: > > SourceLicense: Apache-2.0 > # These are the licenses of statically-linked Rust dependencies, from the > # output of %%{cargo_license_summary}. > # > # Apache-2.0 > # Apache-2.0 OR MIT > # MIT > # MIT OR Apache-2.0 > %global additional_rust_licenses %{shrink: > MIT AND > (Apache-2.0 OR MIT) > } > License: Apache-2.0 AND %{additional_rust_licenses} > > For -devel: > > # This subpackage contains no statically linked Rust dependencies > License: Apache-2.0 > > …and then add to %files: > > %license LICENSE.dependencies > > - You might consider: > > # https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval > ExcludeArch: %{ix86} > > ===== MUST items ===== > > C/C++: > [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. > [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]: 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. > [!]: 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", > "Apache License 2.0". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output > of licensecheck in > /home/ben/fedora/review/2453288-libnsm/licensecheck.txt > > Licenses of statically-linked Rust dependencies must be accounted for > > [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > > -static → -devel → base (has license file) > > [?]: %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. > [x]: 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]: 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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if > present. > Note: Package has .a files: libnsm-static. > [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). > [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libnsm- > devel , libnsm-static > [?]: 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: gpgverify is not used. > [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported > architectures. > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=145490253 > > [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. > > There are no tests that we can run outside of an enclave. > > [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. > [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. > > > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: libnsm-0.5.1-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm > libnsm-devel-0.5.1-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm > libnsm-static-0.5.1-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm > libnsm-0.5.1-2.fc45.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/tmperhrfw8c')] > checks: 32, packages: 4 > > libnsm.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib64/libnsm.so.0.5.1 > libnsm-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('containes', '%description -l en_US > containes -> contained, contains, containers') > libnsm-static.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('libsnm', '%description -l en_US > libsnm -> limbless') > libnsm.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libnsm.so.0.5.1 > libnsm.spec: W: no-%check-section > libnsm.x86_64: E: missing-PT_GNU_STACK-section /usr/lib64/libnsm.so.0.5.1 > 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 2 warnings, 23 filtered, 4 > badness; has taken 1.1 s > > > > > Rpmlint (debuginfo) > ------------------- > Checking: libnsm-debuginfo-0.5.1-2.fc45.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/tmpoqzkuyh3')] > checks: 32, packages: 1 > > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 > badness; has taken 0.3 s > > > > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > ============================ rpmlint session starts > ============================ > rpmlint: 2.9.0 > 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: 4 > > libnsm.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib64/libnsm.so.0.5.1 > libnsm-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('containes', '%description -l en_US > containes -> contained, contains, containers') > libnsm-static.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('libsnm', '%description -l en_US > libsnm -> limbless') > libnsm.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libnsm.so.0.5.1 > libnsm.x86_64: E: missing-PT_GNU_STACK-section /usr/lib64/libnsm.so.0.5.1 > 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 1 warnings, 24 filtered, 4 > badness; has taken 0.3 s > > > > Source checksums > ---------------- > https://github.com/aws/aws-nitro-enclaves-nsm-api/archive/v0.5.1/aws-nitro- > enclaves-nsm-api-0.5.1.tar.gz : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : > b39fa9748db4065a7a81d840e66418f62321d717eaa2802a516d6f1f75a70cf1 > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > b39fa9748db4065a7a81d840e66418f62321d717eaa2802a516d6f1f75a70cf1 > > > Requires > -------- > libnsm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) > libc.so.6()(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) > rtld(GNU_HASH) > > libnsm-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > /usr/bin/pkg-config > libnsm(x86-64) > libnsm.so.0()(64bit) > > libnsm-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > libnsm-devel(x86-64) > > > > Provides > -------- > libnsm: > libnsm > libnsm(x86-64) > libnsm.so.0()(64bit) > > libnsm-devel: > libnsm-devel > libnsm-devel(x86-64) > pkgconfig(libnsm) > > libnsm-static: > libnsm-static > libnsm-static(x86-64) > > > > Diff spec file in url and in SRPM > --------------------------------- > --- /home/ben/fedora/review/2453288-libnsm/srpm/libnsm.spec 2026-05-13 > 12:22:56.584722841 +0100 > +++ /home/ben/fedora/review/2453288-libnsm/srpm-unpacked/libnsm.spec > 2026-05-11 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 = 2; > + 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 crate aws-nitro-enclaves-nsm-api > > @@ -67,3 +77,9 @@ > > %changelog > -%{autochangelog} > +## START: Generated by rpmautospec > +* Mon May 11 2026 Tyler Fanelli <tfanelli> - 0.5.1-2 > +- Uncommitted changes > + > +* Mon May 11 2026 Tyler Fanelli <tfanelli> - 0.5.1-1 > +- Initial commit > +## END: Generated by rpmautospec > > > Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 > Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2453288 > Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 > Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api > Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, PHP, Perl, Java, Ocaml, Haskell, Python, > fonts, R > Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Thanks, I think I've fixed the issue in the latest changes. Would you mind taking a look?
(In reply to Tyler Fanelli from comment #34) > Thanks, I think I've fixed the issue in the latest changes. Would you mind > taking a look? I’m sorry it’s taken me a little while to revisit this. The latest submission looks encouraging, but the spec file and SRPM don’t quite match. Could you please make sure that these two uploads are consistent? It makes it much easier for to make sure that I am reviewing the correct iteration. @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.8.4) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 2; + 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 crate aws-nitro-enclaves-nsm-api @@ -6,17 +16,5 @@ Summary: C library for AWS Nitro Secure Module (NSM) API -SourceLicense: Apache-2.0 -# These are the licenses of statically-linked Rust dependencies, from the -# output of %%{cargo_license_summary}. -# -# Apache-2.0 -# Apache-2.0 OR MIT -# MIT -# MIT OR Apache-2.0 -%global additional_rust_licenses %{shrink: - MIT AND - (Apache-2.0 OR MIT) - } -License: Apache-2.0 AND %{additional_rust_licenses} +License: Apache-2.0 URL: https://github.com/aws/%{crate} Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{crate}-%{version}.tar.gz @@ -35,4 +33,19 @@ %{summary}. +SourceLicense: Apache-2.0 +# These are the licenses of statically-linked Rust dependencies, from the +# output of %%{cargo_license_summary}. +# +# Apache-2.0 +# Apache-2.0 OR MIT +# MIT +# MIT OR Apache-2.0 +%global additional_rust_licenses %{shrink: + MIT AND + (Apache-2.0 OR MIT) + } +License: Apache-2.0 AND %{additional_rust_licenses} + + %package devel Summary: Header files and library for libnsm development @@ -89,3 +102,9 @@ %changelog -%{autochangelog} +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Mon Aug 03 2026 Tyler Fanelli <tfanelli> - 0.5.2-2 +- Uncommitted changes + +* Mon Aug 03 2026 Tyler Fanelli <tfanelli> - 0.5.2-1 +- Initial commit +## END: Generated by rpmautospec
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tylerfanelli/libnsm-rpm/refs/heads/main/libnsm.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/tylerfanelli/libnsm-rpm/blob/main/libnsm-0.5.2-2.fc46.src.rpm Description: C library for AWS Nitro Secure Module (NSM) API Fedora Account System Username: tfanelli
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10897765 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2453288-libnsm/srpm-builds/10897765/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- 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://raw.githubusercontent.com/tylerfanelli/libnsm-rpm/refs/heads/main/libnsm.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/tylerfanelli/libnsm-rpm/raw/refs/heads/main/libnsm-0.5.2-2.fc46.src.rpm Description: C library for AWS Nitro Secure Module (NSM) API Fedora Account System Username: tfanelli
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10897816 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2453288-libnsm/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10897816-libnsm/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.
I think this is OK now! The package is APPROVED. While it’s not mandatory for non-crate packages like this, you might consider adding the rust-sig group as a co-maintainer if you would like SIG members to assist with routine fixes and dependency tweaks, rebuilds for notable CVE’s in statically-linked dependencies, and so on. ---- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. OK: fedora-review is confused by rpmautospec ===== 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0". 19 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2453288-libnsm/licensecheck.txt [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]: 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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: libnsm-static. [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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libnsm- devel , libnsm-static There *is* a Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libnsm-devel, and libnsm-static has an similar Requires on libnsm-devel, as indicated in https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries. [?]: 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: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=149460592 [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. As described in nsm-test/README.md, the tests in nsm-test/ are designed to run in an enclave, so we can’t build and run them here. There are no doctests in the Rust sources, either. [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libnsm-0.5.2-2.fc46.x86_64.rpm libnsm-devel-0.5.2-2.fc46.x86_64.rpm libnsm-static-0.5.2-2.fc46.x86_64.rpm libnsm-0.5.2-2.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/tmp21z7kt12')] checks: 32, packages: 4 libnsm.spec: W: no-%check-section 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 25 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.1 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libnsm-debuginfo-0.5.2-2.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/tmpsxonfu76')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 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: 4 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 26 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/aws/aws-nitro-enclaves-nsm-api/archive/v0.5.2/aws-nitro-enclaves-nsm-api-0.5.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7f568012946c4f93eebd35a37541c6f8b9d2d4216792726a2b1d7b201d30a7ad CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7f568012946c4f93eebd35a37541c6f8b9d2d4216792726a2b1d7b201d30a7ad Requires -------- libnsm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(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) rtld(GNU_HASH) libnsm-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libnsm(x86-64) libnsm.so.0()(64bit) libnsm-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libnsm-devel(x86-64) Provides -------- libnsm: libnsm libnsm(x86-64) libnsm.so.0()(64bit) libnsm-devel: libnsm-devel libnsm-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libnsm) libnsm-static: libnsm-static libnsm-static(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ben/fedora/review/2453288-libnsm/srpm/libnsm.spec 2026-08-25 08:53:10.991021721 +0100 +++ /home/ben/fedora/review/2453288-libnsm/srpm-unpacked/libnsm.spec 2026-08-24 01:00:00.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.8.4) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 2; + 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 crate aws-nitro-enclaves-nsm-api @@ -89,3 +99,9 @@ %changelog -%{autochangelog} +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Mon Aug 24 2026 Tyler Fanelli <tfanelli> - 0.5.2-2 +- Uncommitted changes + +* Wed Aug 12 2026 Tyler Fanelli <tfanelli> - 0.5.2-1 +- Initial commit +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2453288 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Python, PHP, Haskell, Java, R, Ocaml, SugarActivity, fonts, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libnsm Monitoring: Wasn't able to create project in Anitya. You can create it manually on: `https://release-monitoring.org`
FEDORA-2026-a2b88724fe (libnsm-0.5.2-1.fc46) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 46. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-a2b88724fe
FEDORA-2026-a2b88724fe (libnsm-0.5.2-1.fc46) has been pushed to the Fedora 46 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.