https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2524750
--- Comment #2 from Jeremy Cline <[email protected]> --- Hm, so fedora-review is crashing for me when it tries to generate a diff between the source in the SRPM and the upstream tarball. The error is a UTF-8 decoding error which makes me think that video asset that's checked in might be the problem... Anyway, fedora-review should handle that exception so I'll go figure out how to fix that separately. A few notes: - I see an un-escaped macro in a comment on line 74, you'll need to add another % in front of it as you've escaped the other macros in comments. - This looks to only build on x86_64, which given its purpose isn't particularly surprising, I think. Here's a scratch build on Rawhide against all Fedora's supported architectures: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=149539522. Given that's it's an Azure-specific utility I don't think it's a problem that it doesn't build on ppcle64 or s390x, but you'll need to add ExclusiveArch to the specfile. Is there plans for an equivalent feature set on aarch64, and would it live in this package, or is this strictly x86_64? The directive would look something like: # Azure only provides x86_64 and aarch64 and this package only builds on those architectures. ExclusiveArch: %{x86_64} %{arm64} Obviously if it's only for x86_64 you'd drop the Arm64 macro. - I'm not a lawyer and it's not clear to me whether the mp4 video in the source repo counts as https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/what-can-be-packaged/#_impermissible_content - obviously it's not in the built RPM but it's distributed by Fedora in the SRPM. It would be ideal if it could be dropped from the git repo (although unless you want to re-write history your repo will be big forever) and hosted externally. I _think_ it's okay, but I find the impermissible content guideline a little confusing and it would be best to avoid any doubt. Alternatively you could prepare a tarball of the sub-directory and attach it to the release? If neither of those are doable, you can see an example method to clean up a tarball here: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nodejs18/blob/f38/f/nodejs18.spec#_140 (the comment says Source100 but I think it means Source200). - I think you're missing a -p in "install -D -m 0644 ../LICENSE %{_builddir}/%{buildsubdir}/LICENSE" to preserve the timestamp. - fedora-review believes the checksum from the tarball in the SRPM doesn't match the tarball from GitHub. I know those have stability problems, but usually they do match up, so that's something to investigate. See below for the full fedora-review output: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Check did not completechecksum differs and there are problems running diff. Please verify manually. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ ===== 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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* BSD 2-Clause License". 53 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jcline/devel/package-review/2524750-azure- protected-vm-secrets/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. [?]: 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. [!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 15334 bytes in 1 files. [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]: 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: [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. [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 azure- protected-vm-secrets-libs , azure-protected-vm-secrets-devel [-]: 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. [!]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /home/jcline/devel/package- review/2524750-azure-protected-vm-secrets/srpm-unpacked/azure- protected-vm-secrets.spec 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: azure-protected-vm-secrets-1.0.9-1.fc46.x86_64.rpm azure-protected-vm-secrets-libs-1.0.9-1.fc46.x86_64.rpm azure-protected-vm-secrets-devel-1.0.9-1.fc46.x86_64.rpm azure-protected-vm-secrets-1.0.9-1.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/tmpptvoo7v5')] checks: 32, packages: 4 azure-protected-vm-secrets.src: E: spelling-error ('cvm', '%description -l en_US cvm -> cm, cam, com') azure-protected-vm-secrets.src: E: spelling-error ('unprotect', '%description -l en_US unprotect -> unprotected, protection, protector') azure-protected-vm-secrets.src: E: spelling-error ('imds', '%description -l en_US imds -> ids, dims, imps') azure-protected-vm-secrets.src: E: spelling-error ('subpackage', "%description -l en_US subpackage -> sub package, sub-package, package's") azure-protected-vm-secrets.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('cvm', '%description -l en_US cvm -> cm, cam, com') azure-protected-vm-secrets.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('unprotect', '%description -l en_US unprotect -> unprotected, protection, protector') azure-protected-vm-secrets.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('imds', '%description -l en_US imds -> ids, dims, imps') azure-protected-vm-secrets.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('subpackage', "%description -l en_US subpackage -> sub package, sub-package, package's") azure-protected-vm-secrets-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('unversioned', '%description -l en_US unversioned -> versioned') azure-protected-vm-secrets-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('symlink', '%description -l en_US symlink -> slinky') azure-protected-vm-secrets-libs.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('unprotect', '%description -l en_US unprotect -> unprotected, protection, protector') azure-protected-vm-secrets.spec: W: specfile-warning warning: Macro expanded in comment on line 74: %{?_isa}-qualified, fully azure-protected-vm-secrets-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 11 errors, 2 warnings, 30 filtered, 11 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: azure-protected-vm-secrets-debuginfo-1.0.9-1.fc46.x86_64.rpm azure-protected-vm-secrets-libs-debuginfo-1.0.9-1.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/tmp7dlia6j2')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 15 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: 5 azure-protected-vm-secrets-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('unversioned', '%description -l en_US unversioned -> versioned') azure-protected-vm-secrets-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('symlink', '%description -l en_US symlink -> slinky') azure-protected-vm-secrets-libs.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('unprotect', '%description -l en_US unprotect -> unprotected, protection, protector') azure-protected-vm-secrets.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('cvm', '%description -l en_US cvm -> cm, cam, com') azure-protected-vm-secrets.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('unprotect', '%description -l en_US unprotect -> unprotected, protection, protector') azure-protected-vm-secrets.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('imds', '%description -l en_US imds -> ids, dims, imps') azure-protected-vm-secrets.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('subpackage', "%description -l en_US subpackage -> sub package, sub-package, package's") azure-protected-vm-secrets-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 1 warnings, 40 filtered, 7 badness; has taken 0.7 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Azure/confidential-computing-cvm-guest-attestation/archive/refs/tags/azure-protected-vm-secrets-v1.0.9.tar.gz#/azure-protected-vm-secrets-1.0.9.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1904b470391fb080df851c3ff1ed36d76fd3d8b9ae763ce4d2531b69baa14de6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1bfb2268717006178902c910cd155796ca4734b43becaf7b4affeaa42295c3e0 Requires -------- azure-protected-vm-secrets (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): azure-protected-vm-secrets-libs(x86-64) libazure_protected_vm_secrets.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.4()(64bit) libcrypto.so.4(OPENSSL_4.0.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) azure-protected-vm-secrets-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.4()(64bit) libcrypto.so.4(OPENSSL_4.0.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libsystemd.so.0()(64bit) libsystemd.so.0(LIBSYSTEMD_209)(64bit) libtss2-rc.so.0()(64bit) libtss2-sys.so.1()(64bit) libtss2-tcti-device.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) azure-protected-vm-secrets-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): azure-protected-vm-secrets-libs(x86-64) libazure_protected_vm_secrets.so.1()(64bit) Provides -------- azure-protected-vm-secrets: azure-protected-vm-secrets azure-protected-vm-secrets(x86-64) azure-protected-vm-secrets-libs: azure-protected-vm-secrets-libs azure-protected-vm-secrets-libs(x86-64) libazure_protected_vm_secrets.so.1()(64bit) azure-protected-vm-secrets-devel: azure-protected-vm-secrets-devel azure-protected-vm-secrets-devel(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2524750 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Haskell, Ocaml, PHP, Java, Python, Perl, fonts, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2524750 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202524750%23c2 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
