This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines
in what you paste.
- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
ones are mandatory, though)
- Remove this text
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/compat-openssl10
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: Package contains no static executables.
[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]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[ ]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[ ]: 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", "OpenSSL License", "BSD 4-clause
"Original" or "Old" License Apache License 1.0", "SSLeay", "OpenSSL
License BSD 4-clause "Original" or "Old" License", "BSD 2-clause
"Simplified" License", "*No copyright* OpenSSL License", "*No
copyright* Public domain", "BSD 4-clause "Original" or "Old" License",
"BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "SSLeay BSD 4-clause
"Original" or "Old" License", "Apache License 2.0", "ISC License BSD
4-clause "Original" or "Old" License Apache License 1.0", "*No
copyright* BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "GNU General Public
License v2.0 or later", "Expat License". 1248 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-
rpmbuild/results/compat-openssl10/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[ ]: 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
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: 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 614400 bytes in 8 files.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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]: 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]: 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 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in compat-
openssl10-devel
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[ ]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
Note: %define requiring justification: %define __spec_install_post
%{?__debug_package:%{__debug_install_post}} %{__arch_install_post}
%{__os_install_post} crypto/fips/fips_standalone_hmac
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/libcrypto.so.%{version}
>$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/.libcrypto.so.%{version}.hmac ln -sf
.libcrypto.so.%{version}.hmac
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/.libcrypto.so.%{soversion}.hmac
crypto/fips/fips_standalone_hmac
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/libssl.so.%{version}
>$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/.libssl.so.%{version}.hmac ln -sf
.libssl.so.%{version}.hmac
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/.libssl.so.%{soversion}.hmac %{nil}, %define
__provides_exclude_from %{_libdir}/openssl
[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]: SourceX is a working URL.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
is arched.
Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 2754560 bytes in /usr/share
[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).
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: compat-openssl10-1.0.2o-11.fc36.x86_64.rpm
compat-openssl10-devel-1.0.2o-11.fc36.x86_64.rpm
compat-openssl10-debuginfo-1.0.2o-11.fc36.x86_64.rpm
compat-openssl10-debugsource-1.0.2o-11.fc36.x86_64.rpm
compat-openssl10-1.0.2o-11.fc36.src.rpm
compat-openssl10.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pki/openssl10.cnf
compat-openssl10.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib64/.libcrypto.so.1.0.2o.hmac
compat-openssl10.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib64/.libcrypto.so.10.hmac
compat-openssl10.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib64/.libssl.so.1.0.2o.hmac
compat-openssl10.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib64/.libssl.so.10.hmac
compat-openssl10.src: W: strange-permission hobble-openssl 755
compat-openssl10.src: W: strange-permission make-dummy-cert 755
compat-openssl10.src: W: strange-permission renew-dummy-cert 755
compat-openssl10.src:366: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 4, tab: line 366)
compat-openssl10.src: W: invalid-url Source0: openssl-1.0.2o-hobbled.tar.xz
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: compat-openssl10-debuginfo-1.0.2o-11.fc36.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Requires
--------
compat-openssl10 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
coreutils
crypto-policies
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libcrypto.so.10()(64bit)
libcrypto.so.10(OPENSSL_1.0.1_EC)(64bit)
libcrypto.so.10(libcrypto.so.10)(64bit)
libz.so.1()(64bit)
make
rtld(GNU_HASH)
compat-openssl10-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/pkg-config
compat-openssl10(x86-64)
libcrypto.so.10()(64bit)
libssl.so.10()(64bit)
pkgconfig
pkgconfig(libcrypto)
pkgconfig(libssl)
zlib-devel(x86-64)
compat-openssl10-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
compat-openssl10-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides
--------
compat-openssl10:
compat-openssl10
compat-openssl10(x86-64)
libcrypto.so.10()(64bit)
libcrypto.so.10(OPENSSL_1.0.1)(64bit)
libcrypto.so.10(OPENSSL_1.0.1_EC)(64bit)
libcrypto.so.10(OPENSSL_1.0.2)(64bit)
libcrypto.so.10(libcrypto.so.10)(64bit)
libssl.so.10()(64bit)
libssl.so.10(OPENSSL_1.0.1)(64bit)
libssl.so.10(OPENSSL_1.0.1_EC)(64bit)
libssl.so.10(OPENSSL_1.0.2)(64bit)
libssl.so.10(libssl.so.10)(64bit)
compat-openssl10-devel:
compat-openssl10-devel
compat-openssl10-devel(x86-64)
pkgconfig(libcrypto)
pkgconfig(libssl)
pkgconfig(openssl)
compat-openssl10-debuginfo:
compat-openssl10-debuginfo
compat-openssl10-debuginfo(x86-64)
debuginfo(build-id)
libcrypto.so.1.0.2o-1.0.2o-11.fc36.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
libssl.so.1.0.2o-1.0.2o-11.fc36.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
compat-openssl10-debugsource:
compat-openssl10-debugsource
compat-openssl10-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name compat-openssl10 --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic
Disabled plugins: Perl, Python, Haskell, Java, R, PHP, Ocaml, fonts, SugarActivity
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH