Spec URL: https://codeberg.org/gms/fedora-pkg-submission/raw/commit/b0b004acbb5448580b79d274ba032c6b4ce91811/librandombytes.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~gsauthof/librandombytes-20240318-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: librandombytes provides an abstraction over suitable syscalls such as getrandom(), /dev/urandom and OpenSSL's RAND_bytes(). Fedora Account System Username: gsauthof
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10421903 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2464809-librandombytes/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10421903-librandombytes/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.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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]: 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* Public domain". 38 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/librandombytes/2464809- librandombytes/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 19901 bytes in 2 files. [ ]: 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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: librandombytes-static. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [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). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in librandombytes-static [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [ ]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: librandombytes-20240318-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm librandombytes-devel-20240318-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm librandombytes-static-20240318-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm librandombytes-20240318-1.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/tmpc7sngexu')] checks: 32, packages: 4 librandombytes.src: E: spelling-error ('portably', 'Summary(en_US) portably -> portable, port ably, port-ably') librandombytes.src: E: spelling-error ('cryptographically', 'Summary(en_US) cryptographically -> photographically, typographically, topographically') librandombytes.src: E: spelling-error ('syscalls', '%description -l en_US syscalls -> miscalls') librandombytes.src: E: spelling-error ('getrandom', '%description -l en_US getrandom -> get random, get-random, nonrandom') librandombytes.src: E: spelling-error ('dev', '%description -l en_US dev -> deb, derv, div') librandombytes.src: E: spelling-error ('urandom', '%description -l en_US urandom -> random, u random') librandombytes.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('portably', 'Summary(en_US) portably -> portable, port ably, port-ably') librandombytes.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('cryptographically', 'Summary(en_US) cryptographically -> photographically, typographically, topographically') librandombytes.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('syscalls', '%description -l en_US syscalls -> miscalls') librandombytes.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('getrandom', '%description -l en_US getrandom -> get random, get-random, nonrandom') librandombytes.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('dev', '%description -l en_US dev -> deb, derv, div') librandombytes.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('urandom', '%description -l en_US urandom -> random, u random') librandombytes-static.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('linkable', '%description -l en_US linkable -> likable, sinkable, link able') librandombytes.spec:51: W: configure-without-libdir-spec librandombytes.spec:58: W: configure-without-libdir-spec 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 13 errors, 2 warnings, 17 filtered, 13 badness; has taken 1.0 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: librandombytes-debuginfo-20240318-1.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/tmp6tgh8v3b')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 13 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory ============================ 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 librandombytes-static.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('linkable', '%description -l en_US linkable -> likable, sinkable, link able') librandombytes.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('portably', 'Summary(en_US) portably -> portable, port ably, port-ably') librandombytes.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('syscalls', '%description -l en_US syscalls -> miscalls') librandombytes.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('getrandom', '%description -l en_US getrandom -> get random, get-random, nonrandom') librandombytes.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('dev', '%description -l en_US dev -> deb, derv, div') librandombytes.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('urandom', '%description -l en_US urandom -> random, u random') 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 0 warnings, 30 filtered, 6 badness; has taken 1.5 s Source checksums ---------------- https://randombytes.cr.yp.to/librandombytes-20240318.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : fae6fb839096e54ce8abb6dc8ae46ed67b02034474e83cbda088eddd2e584641 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fae6fb839096e54ce8abb6dc8ae46ed67b02034474e83cbda088eddd2e584641 Requires -------- librandombytes (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/sbin/alternatives libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) librandombytes.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) librandombytes-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): librandombytes(x86-64) librandombytes-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): librandombytes-devel(x86-64) Provides -------- librandombytes: librandombytes librandombytes(x86-64) librandombytes.so.1()(64bit) librandombytes-devel: librandombytes-devel librandombytes-devel(x86-64) librandombytes-static: librandombytes-static librandombytes-static(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2464809 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, PHP, R, Ocaml, Python, Java, Haskell, SugarActivity, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Should %ghost be used in the spec file? See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Alternatives/ b) Should the patch be upstreamed?
Ok, good point, I've added the alternatives link with a %ghost directive. Yes, it makes sense to upstream the patch. I already reported the issue the patch addresses to the author, via email, last weekend, but I haven't received a reply, so far. However, I think there isn't really a way around such a change for fixing the SONAME, if you want to use the library as documented by the author: > The idea is that the OS can install librandombytes-kernel by default, but the sysadmin can install librandombytes-openssl to transparently switch all of the randombytes() applications to RAND_bytes (for example, via Debian's /etc/alternatives mechanism) if profiling shows that this switch is important for overall system performance. (https://randombytes.cr.yp.to/index.html) Spec URL: https://codeberg.org/gms/fedora-pkg-submission/raw/commit/7ef2a4a4c3437c4426dbf83e2680763946d3ef83/librandombytes.spec Diff: https://codeberg.org/gms/fedora-pkg-submission/commit/7ef2a4a4c3437c4426dbf83e2680763946d3ef83 SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~gsauthof/librandombytes-20240318-1.fc43.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10430969 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2464809-librandombytes/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10430969-librandombytes/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.
Benson, is there anything else I should address?