[Bug 1334451] Re-Review Request: certbot - A free, automated certificate authority client, renaming letsencrypt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334451 James Hogarth changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2016-05-21 15:52:00 --- Comment #8 from James Hogarth --- This is now stable -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1334451] Re-Review Request: certbot - A free, automated certificate authority client, renaming letsencrypt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334451 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Jerry James --- Looks good. This package is APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1334451] Re-Review Request: certbot - A free, automated certificate authority client, renaming letsencrypt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334451 --- Comment #6 from James Hogarth --- Update with review issues and details from conference: 1) Comment added about patch 2) Fixed the incorrect <= in obsoletes of subpackage 3) Dropped the /var/log %files - as per the original LE review not having this 4) Added symlink from /usr/bin/letsencrypt to /usr/bin/certbot at request of upstream on call for compatibility with old scripts (arguments are compatible). 5) The certbot command uses the old letsencrypt directories still for compatibility so use these in files. This has been updated to the latest git head as well as something as close as possible to the impending 0.6.0 release and switch over. New rawhide koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14027170 New F23 koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14027165 This F23 build was used to generate the certificate via the webroot method just now for https://www.hogarthuk.com/ Spec URL: https://jhogarth.fedorapeople.org/certbot/certbot.spec SRPM URL: https://jhogarth.fedorapeople.org/certbot/certbot-0.6.0-1.0dev0git41f347d.fc25.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1334451] Re-Review Request: certbot - A free, automated certificate authority client, renaming letsencrypt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334451
--- Comment #5 from Jerry James ---
Okay. Since I went through the review process already anyway, I'll post what
I've got, just in case it is helpful.
Issues
==
1. The patch has no explanatory comment (see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment).
This is a SHOULD, not a MUST.
2. The main package Obsoletes is correct ("Obsoletes: letsencrypt < 0.6.0"),
but the subpackage uses "<=" instead of "<", which is not correct. See the
self-obsoletion rpmlint warning.
3. Does this package manage its own log files? See the
log-files-without-logrotate rpmlint warning.
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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 256 files have
unknown license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[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.
[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.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: 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 20480 bytes in 3 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]: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: 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.
[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
python2-certbot
That's okay; the dependency goes the other direction.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is pac
[Bug 1334451] Re-Review Request: certbot - A free, automated certificate authority client, renaming letsencrypt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334451 --- Comment #4 from James Hogarth --- (In reply to Jerry James from comment #3) > I will take this review. Thanks Jerry As an FYI following the conference call I had with the CertBot guys this evening there's a couple of changes I need to make to the spec. These will be made in the next 24 hours. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1334451] Re-Review Request: certbot - A free, automated certificate authority client, renaming letsencrypt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334451 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||loganje...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|loganje...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Jerry James --- I will take this review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1334451] Re-Review Request: certbot - A free, automated certificate authority client, renaming letsencrypt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334451 --- Comment #2 from James Hogarth --- The pyOpenSSL 0.16 that fixes the python-cryptography api change is in place in f24/rawhide now. Here's the rawhide build completing in koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14005701 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1334451] Re-Review Request: certbot - A free, automated certificate authority client, renaming letsencrypt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334451 --- Comment #1 from James Hogarth --- Re-run koji task after I noted a slip up in the python-acme requirement for the prerelease certbot: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13982968 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1334451] Re-Review Request: certbot - A free, automated certificate authority client, renaming letsencrypt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334451 James Hogarth changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1333539 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1333539 [Bug 1333539] letsencrypt -> certbot rename -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
