Spec URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/opendnssec/softhsm.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/opendnssec/softhsm-1.2.1-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: OpenDNSSEC is providing a software implementation of a generic cryptographic device with a PKCS#11 interface, the SoftHSM. SoftHSM is designed to meet the requirements of OpenDNSSEC, but can also work together with other cryptographic products because of the PKCS#11 interface. current rpmlint output: softhsm.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libsofthsm.so libsofthsm.so softhsm.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/softhsm 0700L softhsm-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libsofthsm -> libertinism, softhearted The invalid-soname is something I'm talking to upstream about right now. They changed from a shared library to a module but need to change the install location. Will be fixed in a rebuild when upstream has decided on a place (or else I'll pick one in a day or two)
I've updated to softhsm-1.3.0. They still did not fix the .so issue, so I"ve changed --libdir to %{_libdir}/softhsm/ to avoid the system from trying to use it as a shared library. rpmlint output: softhsm.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/softhsm 0700L softhsm-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libsofthsm -> libertinism, softhearted 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Spec URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/opendnssec/softhsm.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/opendnssec/softhsm-1.3.0-1.fc14.src.rpm
Close... A few minor things to clean up. * Notes: -devel description: Summary: Development package that (does not?) includes header files Description: The devel package contains the libsofthsm library and (no?) include files + Pick one? (hint, it does) * MUSTs - [X] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review. - spec file: 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. - src rpm: softhsm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptographic -> cryptography, cryptographer, crystallographic 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. - binary RPM: 0-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm /home/hardaker/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/softhsm-1.3.0-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm softhsm-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libsofthsm -> softhearted softhsm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptographic -> cryptography, cryptographer, crystallographic softhsm.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/softhsm softhsm.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/softhsm-keyconv softhsm.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/softhsm/libsofthsm.so softhsm.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/softhsm 0700L 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. - Reviewer note: the /var/softhsm directory will contain keys and locking it down to root-readable makes sense. - [X] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . - [X] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. - [X] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . - [X] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . - [X] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. - Note: the only copyright statements are in the source code, but are BSD licenses. Work with the upstream to add a top-level file? - [X] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc. - [X] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. - [X] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. - [X] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. - [X] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. - [X] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. - [X] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. - tested via mock - [X] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. - [ ] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. - Needs to be added - [X] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. - [X] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. - [X] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. - [X] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations) - [X] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. - [X] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. - [X] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. - [X] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). - [X] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. - [X] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. - [ ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. - Err... they're in -devel. That's a new requirement to me as well. It's certainly not consistently enforced yet. - [X] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. - [X] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} - [X] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. - [X] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. - [X] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. - [X] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. * SHOULDs - [X] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. - Note: not available - [X] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. - [X] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. - [X] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. - Didn't do a huge amount, but started to tinker. - [X] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. - [X] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. - [X] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. - [X] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. - [X] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.
The important ones: -devel description: Summary: Development package that (does not?) includes header files Description: The devel package contains the libsofthsm library and (no?) include files + Pick one? (hint, it does) - [ ] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. - Needs to be added - [ ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. - Err... they're in -devel. That's a new requirement to me as well. It's certainly not consistently enforced yet. Also of note is this one (but it's not a blocker, IMHO) - [X] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. - Note: the only copyright statements are in the source code, but are BSD licenses. Work with the upstream to add a top-level file? I do think having /var/softhsm owned by a softhsm group would be more helpful for mulit-operator environments.
Whoops, my bad: the /usr/lib64/softhsm contains the .so file so there is no requirement to run ldconfig.
So if I understood Wes correctly, the only real mistake left was the text about include files in the descriptions? Those have been fixed. I have not added a separate user as this might complicate things later with HSM as well. Spec URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/opendnssec/softhsm.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/opendnssec/softhsm-1.3.0-2.fc14.src.rpm
I'll leave it to your judgment about the user... It does seem less useful to me "as is", but I don't see a problem with it. The new spec file does fix the summary/description issues. But there is still the remaining issue of the static .a library, which now must either be packaged into a -static package (or you could just remove it instead).
how's this? Spec URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/opendnssec/softhsm.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/opendnssec/softhsm-1.3.0-3.fc14.src.rpm * Thu Oct 27 2011 Paul Wouters <paul> - 1.3.0-3 - Do not install the .a file - Use a separate "opendnssec" user to own /var/sofhsm [paul@bofh fedora]$ rpmlint /home/paul/SRPMS/softhsm-1.3.0-3.fc14.src.rpm /home/paul/RPMS/x86_64/softhsm-1.3.0-3.fc14.x86_64.rpm /home/paul/RPMS/x86_64/softhsm-devel-1.3.0-3.fc14.x86_64.rpm /home/paul/RPMS/x86_64/softhsm-debuginfo-1.3.0-3.fc14.x86_64.rpm softhsm.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/softhsm opendnssec softhsm.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/softhsm opendnssec softhsm.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/softhsm 0770L softhsm-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libsofthsm -> libertinism, softhearted 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
Looks good to me! I like the new user/group, as I doubt most operators in critical environments operate by themselves. Approved.
Minor nits that ideally should be cleaned up in the final packaging: - I think things like %{__rm} are preferred to standard binary calls. I've never figured out why though. - Ideally, I think removing *.a would be safer than *a
I am using *a because there is .a and a .la file there. On #fedora-devel they also said to just use "rm" and "install" instead of their macros
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: softhsm Short Description: Software version of a PKCS#11 Hardware Security Module Owners: pwouters Branches: f15 f16 el5 el6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
softhsm-1.3.0-3.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/softhsm-1.3.0-3.fc16
softhsm-1.3.0-3.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/softhsm-1.3.0-3.fc15
softhsm-1.3.0-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/softhsm-1.3.0-3.el6
softhsm-1.3.0-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.
softhsm-1.3.0-3.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.
softhsm-1.3.0-3.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.
softhsm-1.3.0-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.