Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://marcusburghardt.fedorapeople.org/complytime-providers.spec SRPM URL: https://marcusburghardt.fedorapeople.org/complytime-providers-0.2.1-1.fc44.src.rpm Description: Compliance scanning providers that extend complyctl with support for different policy validation platforms (OpenSCAP, Ampel, OPA). Each provider communicates with complyctl via gRPC and follows the complyctl-provider-* discovery convention. Fedora Account System Username: marcusburghardt This package is part of the ComplyTime organization: https://github.com/complytime NOTE: This package requires complyctl >= 1.0.0 at runtime. A coordinated update to complyctl v1.0.0 in Fedora will be submitted alongside this package via a multi-build Bodhi update, so both packages arrive in stable repos together.
Proactive Self-Review (Package Author) ======================================= NOTE: I am the author and submitter of this package. This self-review is provided proactively to help the assigned reviewer by documenting the rationale for each manual check item. It does NOT replace a neutral review from another packager — the fedora-review+ flag must be set by the assigned reviewer after their own independent assessment. A step-by-step reviewer guide with quick verification commands is available at: https://marcusburghardt.fedorapeople.org/complytime-providers-reviewer-guide.txt This package follows the same patterns as complyctl (BZ #2375155), which was already reviewed and approved. The spec uses identical Fedora Go packaging macros (go-vendor-tools, %gobuild, %gocheck2). Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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. Comment: Apache-2.0 project license. Vendored dependency licenses (BSD-3-Clause, ISC, MIT, MPL-2.0) are all OSI-approved. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Comment: Verified with go_vendor_license --config go-vendor-tools.toml report expression. Output: Apache-2.0 AND BSD-3-Clause AND ISC AND MIT AND MPL-2.0. The "Unknown or generated" note from licensecheck is a false positive — go-vendor-tools handles vendored license detection for Go packages. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. Comment: All sub-packages Requires: complytime-providers = %{version}-%{release}, which contains %go_vendor_license_filelist. Any sub-package installation pulls in the main package with all license files. [-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. Comment: The License field contains the full SPDX expression. The per-file breakdown is managed by go-vendor-tools and verified at build time via %go_vendor_license_check. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Comment: /usr/libexec/complytime/providers is owned by the complyctl package (complyctl.spec %files section declares %dir for both /usr/libexec/complytime/ and /usr/libexec/complytime/providers/). Each sub-package has Requires: complyctl >= 1.0.0 which guarantees the directory exists at install time. The fedora-review tool flags this because complyctl is not installed in the mock buildroot, but the dependency chain is correct. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Comment: See above. The providers package does NOT create or own /usr/libexec/complytime/providers — it installs files INTO that directory, which is owned by the complyctl package. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. Comment: Uses %gobuild macro which applies PIE, RELRO, FORTIFY, -linkmode=external, and generates proper DWARF debuginfo. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. Comment: Go vendored dependencies are handled per Fedora Go Packaging Guidelines. Bundled provides are auto-generated by go-vendor-tools (visible in the Provides section of the review output). [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. Comment: Apache-2.0 source code with vendored dependencies under OSI-approved licenses. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. Comment: Not a GUI application. These are gRPC plugin binaries invoked by complyctl. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package Comment: No development files produced. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. Comment: %doc README.md is documentation only. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). Comment: Uses %{_libexecdir}, %{_mandir}, %{goipath}, %{gobuilddir}, %{app_dir} throughout. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Comment: complytime-providers with -openscap, -ampel, -opa sub-packages. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. Comment: Provider binaries installed to %{_libexecdir}/complytime/ providers/ — appropriate for helper programs not invoked directly by users. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. Comment: Not a rename. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. Comment: complyctl >= 1.0.0 (plugin host, owns provider directory), openscap-scanner + scap-security-guide (OpenSCAP provider runtime), git (OPA provider for cloning repositories). Ampel and OPA providers also need external tools (snappy, ampel, conftest) not packaged in Fedora — documented in %description NOTE sections. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. Comment: Not a daemon or service. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. Comment: %gobuild generates proper DWARF debuginfo. Debuginfo rpmlint is fully clean (0 errors, 0 warnings). [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. Comment: Uses ExclusiveArch: %{go_arches} per Go packaging guidelines. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines Comment: Follows Fedora Go Packaging Guidelines using go-vendor-tools, %gobuild, %gocheck2, %autorelease, and forge macros. [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 below). [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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 2620 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. Comment: Apache-2.0 LICENSE file is in the upstream repo root. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). Comment: Bundled provides auto-generated by go-vendor-tools. Runtime requires are correct and minimal. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Comment: Sub-packages use Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} without %{?_isa}. This is correct — the main package contains only license files (arch-independent content). Adding %{?_isa} would unnecessarily prevent multilib scenarios. Same pattern used by other Fedora Go packages with license-only main packages. [x]: Package functions as described. Comment: Provider binaries install to /usr/libexec/complytime/ providers/ and are discoverable by complyctl via the complyctl-provider-* naming convention. [x]: Latest version is packaged. Comment: v0.2.1 is the latest upstream release. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Comment: Upstream uses cosign (Sigstore keyless signing), not GPG signatures. Source checksum verification is performed by fedora-review (see checksums section — they match). [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. Comment: %gocheck2 runs the full test suite. All 28 test packages pass (visible in mock build log). [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. Comment: install -p used throughout %install section. [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: [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 below). [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 Analysis ---------------- All rpmlint messages are false positives or expected: - spelling-error (complyctl, gRPC, conftest): These are actual tool and protocol names, not typos. - no-binary on complytime-providers main package: This package holds only shared license files — provider binaries are in sub-packages. This is the intended design for multi-subpackage Go specs where the main package serves as a license holder. - no-documentation on sub-packages: Documentation (README.md) is in the main package. Sub-packages contain only the provider binary. - invalid-url Source1: The vendor archive is a local file generated by go_vendor_archive, not a downloadable URL. Standard for Fedora Go packages using go-vendor-tools. - specfile-warning autopatch: No patches are defined — harmless warning. - files-duplicate (oklog/run/LICENSE): This vendored license file is identical to the project LICENSE (both Apache-2.0). Managed by go-vendor-tools. - unused-direct-shlib-dependency libresolv.so.2: Go's net package links libresolv via cgo for DNS resolution. Same warning appeared in the complyctl review (BZ #2375155) and was accepted. Cross-Package Coordination Note -------------------------------- This package requires complyctl >= 1.0.0 at runtime. The complyctl package is already in Fedora (BZ #2375155) at v0.0.8. An update to complyctl v1.0.0 will be submitted as a multi-build Bodhi update alongside this package, so both arrive in stable repos together and users never see complyctl v1.0.0 without providers available.
Package Review ============== Reviewer: Hannah Braswell <hbraswel> I have completed a review of BugZilla 2526823 using the guide at https://marcusburghardt.fedorapeople.org/complytime-providers-reviewer-guide.txt. I validated all criteria and inspected each output alongside the spec. I will set the the fedora-review+ flag to confirm my review. Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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. Comment: validated the SPDX license expression using the command go_vendor_license --config ../go-vendor-tools.toml report expression. The output produced by the go_vendor_license: “Using detector: askalono Apache-2.0 AND BSD-3-Clause AND ISC AND MIT AND MPL-2.0.” [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". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /root/work/2526823-complytime- providers/licensecheck.txt Comment: validated with licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-]: 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. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 2620 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. Comment: upstream repository matches Apache 2.0 license. [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 complytime-providers-openscap , complytime-providers-ampel , complytime-providers-opa [x]: 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: [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 Analysis (includes mandatory rpmlint output) ===================================================== All rpmlint messages are false positives or expected: - spelling-error (complyctl, gRPC, conftest) These are actual tool/protocol names. - no-binary on main package The main package holds only license files. Provider binaries are in sub-packages. This is the standard design for Go packages with multiple sub-packages sharing vendored licenses. - no-documentation on sub-packages Documentation (README.md) is in the main package. - invalid-url Source1 The vendor archive is generated locally by go_vendor_archive. Standard for Fedora Go packages using go-vendor-tools. - unused-direct-shlib-dependency libresolv.so.2 Go's net package links libresolv via cgo for DNS resolution. Same warning appeared in the complyctl review and was accepted. ------- Checking: complytime-providers-0.2.1-1.fc46.aarch64.rpm complytime-providers-openscap-0.2.1-1.fc46.aarch64.rpm complytime-providers-ampel-0.2.1-1.fc46.aarch64.rpm complytime-providers-opa-0.2.1-1.fc46.aarch64.rpm complytime-providers-0.2.1-1.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/tmpszrip8tk')] checks: 32, packages: 5 complytime-providers.src: E: spelling-error ('complyctl', 'Summary(en_US) complyctl -> comply') complytime-providers.src: E: spelling-error ('complyctl', '%description -l en_US complyctl -> comply') complytime-providers.src: E: spelling-error ('gRPC', '%description -l en_US gRPC -> grip') complytime-providers-ampel.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('complyctl', 'Summary(en_US) complyctl -> comply') complytime-providers-ampel.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('complyctl', '%description -l en_US complyctl -> comply') complytime-providers-ampel.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('gRPC', '%description -l en_US gRPC -> grip') complytime-providers-opa.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('complyctl', 'Summary(en_US) complyctl -> comply') complytime-providers-opa.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('complyctl', '%description -l en_US complyctl -> comply') complytime-providers-opa.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('gRPC', '%description -l en_US gRPC -> grip') complytime-providers-opa.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('conftest', '%description -l en_US conftest -> contest') complytime-providers-openscap.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('complyctl', 'Summary(en_US) complyctl -> comply') complytime-providers-openscap.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('complyctl', '%description -l en_US complyctl -> comply') complytime-providers-openscap.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('gRPC', '%description -l en_US gRPC -> grip') complytime-providers.spec: W: specfile-warning warning: /tmp/rpmlint.complytime-providers-0.2.1-1.fc46.src.rpm.qcwuq2a6/complytime-providers.spec line 87: autopatch: no matching patches in range complytime-providers-ampel.aarch64: W: no-documentation complytime-providers-opa.aarch64: W: no-documentation complytime-providers-openscap.aarch64: W: no-documentation complytime-providers.aarch64: E: no-binary complytime-providers.spec: W: invalid-url Source1: complytime-providers-0.2.1-vendor.tar.bz2 complytime-providers.aarch64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/complytime-providers/vendor/github.com/oklog/run/LICENSE /usr/share/licenses/complytime-providers/LICENSE 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 14 errors, 6 warnings, 31 filtered, 14 badness; has taken 0.9 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: complytime-providers-openscap-debuginfo-0.2.1-1.fc46.aarch64.rpm complytime-providers-ampel-debuginfo-0.2.1-1.fc46.aarch64.rpm complytime-providers-opa-debuginfo-0.2.1-1.fc46.aarch64.rpm complytime-providers-debuginfo-0.2.1-1.fc46.aarch64.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/tmp7cwpy_zw')] checks: 32, packages: 4 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 25 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.9 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: 8 complytime-providers-openscap.aarch64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/libexec/complytime/providers/complyctl-provider-openscap /lib64/libresolv.so.2 complytime-providers-ampel.aarch64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/libexec/complytime/providers/complyctl-provider-ampel /lib64/libresolv.so.2 complytime-providers-opa.aarch64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/libexec/complytime/providers/complyctl-provider-opa /lib64/libresolv.so.2 complytime-providers-openscap.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('complyctl', 'Summary(en_US) complyctl -> comply') complytime-providers-openscap.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('complyctl', '%description -l en_US complyctl -> comply') complytime-providers-openscap.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('gRPC', '%description -l en_US gRPC -> grip') complytime-providers-ampel.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('complyctl', 'Summary(en_US) complyctl -> comply') complytime-providers-ampel.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('complyctl', '%description -l en_US complyctl -> comply') complytime-providers-ampel.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('gRPC', '%description -l en_US gRPC -> grip') complytime-providers-opa.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('complyctl', 'Summary(en_US) complyctl -> comply') complytime-providers-opa.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('complyctl', '%description -l en_US complyctl -> comply') complytime-providers-opa.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('gRPC', '%description -l en_US gRPC -> grip') complytime-providers-opa.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('conftest', '%description -l en_US conftest -> contest') complytime-providers-openscap.aarch64: W: no-documentation complytime-providers-ampel.aarch64: W: no-documentation complytime-providers-opa.aarch64: W: no-documentation complytime-providers.aarch64: E: no-binary complytime-providers.aarch64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/complytime-providers/vendor/github.com/oklog/run/LICENSE /usr/share/licenses/complytime-providers/LICENSE 8 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 11 errors, 7 warnings, 55 filtered, 11 badness; has taken 0.6 s Step 7: Cross-package coordination ----------------------------------- This package requires complyctl >= 1.0.0 at runtime, but the current Fedora complyctl is at v0.0.8. Once this review is complete, both packages will be updated as a multi-build Bodhi update (complyctl v1.0.0 + this package). Users never see complyctl v1.0.0 without providers available. Note: the build succeeds without complyctl since it is a runtime dependency, not BuildRequires. Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2526823
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/complytime-providers Monitoring: Wasn't able to create project in Anitya. You can create it manually on: `https://release-monitoring.org`