[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006

Jordi Sanfeliu  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Last Closed||2023-07-13 15:16:46




-- 
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #59 from Jordi Sanfeliu  ---
(In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #57)
> Verification of the installed package passes. Ok.
> 
> The package is APPROVED.

Thank you very much for patience and excellent assistance.


-- 
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=1877006

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201877006%23c59
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #58 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 
 ---
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/smf-spf


-- 
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201877006%23c58
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #57 from Petr Pisar  ---
$ rpmlint smf-spf.spec ../SRPMS/smf-spf-2.5.1^20220423g061e937-1.fc39.src.rpm
../RPMS/x86_64/smf-spf-*
 rpmlint session starts
===
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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: 31, packages: 5

smf-spf.x86_64: W: post-without-tmpfile-creation /usr/lib/tmpfiles.d/smfs.conf
smf-spf.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /run/smfs smfs
smf-spf.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /run/smfs/smf-spf.sock smfs
smf-spf.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /run/smfs smfs
smf-spf.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /run/smfs/smf-spf.sock smfs
smf-spf.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /run/smfs 700
smf-spf.x86_64: E: non-readable /run/smfs/smf-spf.sock 600
smf-spf.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary smf-spf
= 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings, 2 badness;
has taken 0.3 s 
rpmlint is Ok.

The package builds in Fedora 39
(https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=103310187). Ok.

Verification of the installed package passes. Ok.

The package is APPROVED.


-- 
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=1877006

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201877006%23c57
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #55 from Fedora Review Service 
 ---
Created attachment 1975573
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1975573=edit
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6164195 to 6169035


-- 
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=1877006

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201877006%23c55
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #56 from Fedora Review Service 
 ---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6169035
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-1877006-smf-spf/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06169035-smf-spf/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.


-- 
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=1877006

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201877006%23c56
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #54 from Jordi Sanfeliu  ---
(In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #53)
> The %attr() macro must on the same line as the socket file. The way you
> wrote it does not have any effect:
> 
> $ rpm -qlvp  ../RPMS/x86_64/smf-spf-2.5.1^20220423g061e937-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
> | grep sock
> -rw-r--r--1 root root0 Jul 12 02:00
> /run/smfs/smf-spf.sock
> 
> Fix it like this:
> 
> -%ghost /run/smfs/smf-spf.sock
> -%attr(0600,smfs,smfs)
> +%ghost %attr(0600,smfs,smfs) /run/smfs/smf-spf.sock

Oh, I'm sorry.
Now is fixed.

- Please, find the latest .spec and SRPM versions here
Spec URL: https://ftp.fibranet.cat/smf-spf/smf-spf.spec
SRPM URL:
https://ftp.fibranet.cat/smf-spf/smf-spf-2.5.1^20220423g061e937-1.fc38.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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201877006%23c54
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #53 from Petr Pisar  ---
The %attr() macro must on the same line as the socket file. The way you wrote
it does not have any effect:

$ rpm -qlvp  ../RPMS/x86_64/smf-spf-2.5.1^20220423g061e937-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm  |
grep sock
-rw-r--r--1 root root0 Jul 12 02:00
/run/smfs/smf-spf.sock

Fix it like this:

-%ghost /run/smfs/smf-spf.sock
-%attr(0600,smfs,smfs)
+%ghost %attr(0600,smfs,smfs) /run/smfs/smf-spf.sock


-- 
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201877006%23c53
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #51 from Fedora Review Service 
 ---
Created attachment 1975350
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1975350=edit
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6164027 to 6164195


-- 
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=1877006

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201877006%23c51
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #52 from Fedora Review Service 
 ---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6164195
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-1877006-smf-spf/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06164195-smf-spf/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.


-- 
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201877006%23c52
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #50 from Jordi Sanfeliu  ---
(In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #49)
> FIX: Package the socket file with %attr(0600,smfs,smfs).

OK, done.


- Please, find the latest .spec and SRPM versions here
Spec URL: https://ftp.fibranet.cat/smf-spf/smf-spf.spec
SRPM URL:
https://ftp.fibranet.cat/smf-spf/smf-spf-2.5.1^20220423g061e937-1.fc38.src.rpm

(crossing fingers)


-- 
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201877006%23c50
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #49 from Petr Pisar  ---
$ rpmlint smf-spf.spec ../SRPMS/smf-spf-2.5.1^20220423g061e937-1.fc39.src.rpm
../RPMS/x86_64/smf-spf-*
 rpmlint session starts
===
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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: 31, packages: 5

smf-spf.x86_64: W: post-without-tmpfile-creation /usr/lib/tmpfiles.d/smfs.conf
smf-spf.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /run/smfs smfs
smf-spf.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /run/smfs smfs
smf-spf.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /run/smfs 700
smf-spf.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary smf-spf
smf-spf.x86_64: E: file-parent-ownership-mismatch Path "/run/smfs/smf-spf.sock"
owned by "root" is stored in directory owned by "smfs"
= 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings, 2 badness;
has taken 0.3 s 
rpmlint is OK.

The package builds in F39
(https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=103262450). Ok.

/run/smfs is installed with a proper owner. Ok.
/run/smfs is created after a reboot with a proper owner. Ok.
smf-spf.service starts successfully. Ok.


After starting the daemon, RPM verification fails:

# ls -la /run/smfs/
total 0
drwx--.  2 smfs smfs  60 Jul 12 11:57 .
drwxr-xr-x. 25 root root 660 Jul 12 11:55 ..
srw---.  1 smfs smfs   0 Jul 12 11:57 smf-spf.sock
(reverse-i-search)`ve': dnf5 --disablerepo=rawhide --enablerepo=f39-build
remo^C sendmail
# rpm -V smf-spf
.M...UG..  g /run/smfs/smf-spf.sock

The reason is that the daemon deletes the socket and recreates it with a
different ownership, mode and timestamp. Compare to the packaged data:

$ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/x86_64/smf-spf-2.5.1^20220423g061e937-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
| grep smf-spf.sock
-rw-r--r--1 root root0 Jul 12 02:00
/run/smfs/smf-spf.sock

FIX: Package the socket file with %attr(0600,smfs,smfs).

Please correct this last issue.


-- 
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=1877006

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201877006%23c49
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #48 from Fedora Review Service 
 ---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6164027
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-1877006-smf-spf/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06164027-smf-spf/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.


-- 
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=1877006

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201877006%23c48
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #47 from Fedora Review Service 
 ---
Created attachment 1975330
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1975330=edit
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6161483 to 6164027


-- 
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201877006%23c47
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #46 from Jordi Sanfeliu  ---
(In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #45)
> TODO: Are you sure sendmail is required at build time (smf-spf.spec:23)?

No, it doesn't. It was a mistake.
Fixed.


> FIX: Correct a version in the changelog entry. It must be
> '2.5.1^20220423g061e937-1'.

OK, done.


> FIX: Add a tmpfiles configuration file for /run/smfs directory. You mention
> it in a comment at smf-spf.spec:52, but probably forget to install it.

I think I've fixed it.


> FIX: The sysuser approach does not work for me. %pre script is empty as
> rpmlint warns and indeed after installing the package there is no smfs user
> and /run/smfs is owner by root. Also starting the service "fails" like this:
> Jul 12 10:44:59 fedora-39 systemd[1]: Starting smf-spf.service - Sender
> Policy Framework milter...
> Jul 12 10:44:59 fedora-39 smf-spf[3080]: starting smf-spf 2.5.2 listening on
> unix:/run/smfs/smf-spf.sock
> Jul 12 10:44:59 fedora-39 smf-spf[3080]: getpwnam smfs: User does not exists
> Jul 12 10:44:59 fedora-39 systemd[1]: smf-spf.service: Deactivated
> successfully.
> Jul 12 10:44:59 fedora-39 systemd[1]: Started smf-spf.service - Sender
> Policy Framework milter.
> 
> If sysuser approach does not work, we should use manual scrips with useradd
> command.

I think I've fixed it.
Let's see how it goes this time.


- Please, find the latest .spec and SRPM versions here
Spec URL: https://ftp.fibranet.cat/smf-spf/smf-spf.spec
SRPM URL:
https://ftp.fibranet.cat/smf-spf/smf-spf-2.5.1^20220423g061e937-1.fc38.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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201877006%23c46
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #45 from Petr Pisar  ---
Url and Source0 addresses are Ok.
Source0 archive (SHA-512:
5b7955dae6d19bea1290e2cfd700d150ad46e53325b5bac9305f6534623802daecd8aee0696cb47708934e2a8b8008a8536f0d65657cf1003a12a1423bfb4a3e)
is original. Ok.
License verified from smf-spf.c, COPYING, .devcontainer/Dockerfile. Ok.

TODO: Are you sure sendmail is required at build time (smf-spf.spec:23)?

$ rpmlint smf-spf.spec ../SRPMS/smf-spf-2.5.1^20220423g061e937-1.fc39.src.rpm
../RPMS/x86_64/smf-spf-*
 rpmlint session starts
===
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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: 31, packages: 5

smf-spf.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /run/smfs smfs
smf-spf.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /run/smfs smfs
smf-spf.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /run/smfs 700
smf-spf.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary smf-spf
smf-spf.spec:54: W: macro-in-comment %{SOURCE4}
smf-spf.spec:54: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
smf-spf.spec:54: W: macro-in-comment %{_sysusersdir}
smf-spf.spec:54: W: macro-in-comment %{SOURCE4}
smf-spf.spec:54: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
smf-spf.spec:54: W: macro-in-comment %{_sysusersdir}
smf-spf.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.5.1-1
['2.5.1^20220423g061e937-1.fc39', '2.5.1^20220423g061e937-1']
smf-spf.x86_64: E: file-parent-ownership-mismatch Path "/run/smfs/smf-spf.sock"
owned by "root" is stored in directory owned by "smfs"
smf-spf.x86_64: W: empty-%pre
 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 11 warnings, 2 badness;
has taken 0.3 s 

FIX: Correct a version in the changelog entry. It must be
'2.5.1^20220423g061e937-1'.

FIX: Add a tmpfiles configuration file for /run/smfs directory. You mention it
in a comment at smf-spf.spec:52, but probably forget to install it.

FIX: The sysuser approach does not work for me. %pre script is empty as rpmlint
warns and indeed after installing the package there is no smfs user and
/run/smfs is owner by root. Also starting the service "fails" like this:
Jul 12 10:44:59 fedora-39 systemd[1]: Starting smf-spf.service - Sender Policy
Framework milter...
Jul 12 10:44:59 fedora-39 smf-spf[3080]: starting smf-spf 2.5.2 listening on
unix:/run/smfs/smf-spf.sock
Jul 12 10:44:59 fedora-39 smf-spf[3080]: getpwnam smfs: User does not exists
Jul 12 10:44:59 fedora-39 systemd[1]: smf-spf.service: Deactivated
successfully.
Jul 12 10:44:59 fedora-39 systemd[1]: Started smf-spf.service - Sender Policy
Framework milter.

If sysuser approach does not work, we should use manual scrips with useradd
command.

The package builds in F39
(https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=103259442). Ok.


-- 
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=1877006

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201877006%23c45
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006

Fedora Review Service  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

URL||https://github.com/jcbf/smf
   ||-spf/



--- Comment #44 from Fedora Review Service 
 ---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6161483
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-1877006-smf-spf/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06161483-smf-spf/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.


-- 
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201877006%23c44
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #43 from Fedora Review Service 
 ---
Created attachment 1975172
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1975172=edit
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6149097 to 6161483


-- 
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201877006%23c43
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #42 from Jordi Sanfeliu  ---
(In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #37)
> FIX: Missing an Url tag in the spec file pointing to an upstream. Did you
> mean ?

Yes, done.


> FIX: Source0 looks like a VCS snapshot. Put a URL you cloned it from into a
> comment above Source0 tag
>  #_using_revision_control>. Or use a URL of the snapshot if the upstream VCS
> hosting system supports it.

OK, done.


> FIX: Version does not follow a schema for snapshots
>  #_snapshots>. Consider what would happen if you need to upgrade to a
> "051e937" snapshot of a 2.5.1-post release. In your current schema the new
> version would sort lower than the old version.

OK, done.


> TODO: It looks like the tests come from The Trusted Domain Project which
> uses .
> That license requires carrying the license text. However, I cannot see the
> license text anywhere in the source archive. You should clarify with the
> upstream an origin of the tests. If upstream confirms it, the upstream and
> you need to supply the missing license text.

I'll talk with upstream author to clarify this license mess.


> FIX: Remove "rm -rf spf2" command from %prep. There is no such directory in
> the archive.

OK, done.


> TODO: Use "install -m0644" instead of "cp -a" for copying the additional
> sources. A mode of the files is undefined. It depends on umask of the host
> which builds the package.

OK, done


> FIX: Remove a duplicate "BuildRequires: systemd-rpm-macros".
> FIX: Remove "Requires(pre):  shadow-utils". A correct dependency is handled
> with "%{?sysusers_requires_compat}" macro.
> FIX: Build-requires "coreutils" (smf-spf.spec:52).
> FIX: Build-require "make" (smf-spf.spec:49).

OK, done.


> FIX: The README.rpm is out-dated. "service", "chkconfig" commands are now
> replaced with systemctl. Recommendation to install dependencies like libspf2
> and sendmail is pointless. These are handled with RPM run-time dependencies
> of this package. If sendmail-cf is required, then smf-spf or sendmail should
> run-require it.

OK, done.


> FIX: The lua script still fails:
> error: lua script failed: [string "add_sysuser"]:16: invalid sysuser type:
> #Type
>   3<(%lua)
>   2<  (%add_sysuser)
> Have you tried removing a first line with the comment from the file? At this
> step the file is interpreted by Lua script of rpmbuild to generated RPM
> Provides and it's possible that the script does not support comments.

OK, done.


> FIX: smf-spf.sysusers declares /var/lib/smfs as a home directory, but that
> directory is not packaged. I think you should use "-" or "/run/smfs"
> instead. See sysusers.d(5) manual page.

OK, done.


> FIX: /run/smfs directory disappears on reboot because /run is tmpfs. Use
>  for
> creating one with correct ownership and mode.

OK, done.


> TODO: Does this mail filter work only with sendmail? If it also works with
> postfix, the package should depend on "(sendmail or postfix)".

OK, done.


- Please, find the latest .spec and SRPM versions here
Spec URL: https://ftp.fibranet.cat/smf-spf/smf-spf.spec
SRPM URL:
https://ftp.fibranet.cat/smf-spf/smf-spf-2.5.1^20220423g061e937-1.fc38.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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201877006%23c42
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #41 from Jordi Sanfeliu  ---
(In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #40)
> %autosetup has -n option to specify the top-level directory in the archive.
> See
>  #_commit_revision>.

Ah!, I was searching in this document but I was unable to find it.
Thank you very much.


-- 
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201877006%23c41
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #40 from Petr Pisar  ---
%autosetup has -n option to specify the top-level directory in the archive. See
.


-- 
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=1877006

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201877006%23c40
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #39 from Jordi Sanfeliu  ---
> FIX: Source0 looks like a VCS snapshot. Put a URL you cloned it from into a 
> comment above Source0 tag 
> .
>  Or use a URL of the snapshot if the upstream VCS hosting system supports it.

The problem here is that if I include an URL to download the source code
directly from upstream VCS (GitHub in this case), the directory inside the .zip
file is different than what the Version tag says:

Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.IQOr91
+ umask 022
+ cd /root/rpmbuild/BUILD
+ cd /root/rpmbuild/BUILD
+ rm -rf 'smf-spf-2.5.1^20220423g061e937'
+ /usr/lib/rpm/rpmuncompress -x
/root/rpmbuild/SOURCES/061e9371f761f70afd40af349f4037fe0460725c.zip
replace
smf-spf-061e9371f761f70afd40af349f4037fe0460725c/.devcontainer/Dockerfile?
[y]es, [n]o, [A]ll, [N]one, [r]ename: A
+ STATUS=0
+ '[' 0 -ne 0 ']'
+ cd 'smf-spf-2.5.1^20220423g061e937'
/var/tmp/rpm-tmp.IQOr91: line 40: cd: smf-spf-2.5.1^20220423g061e937: No such
file or directory

How can I provide an upstream URL and tell to the specfile the exact name of
the directory where the source code is?


-- 
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201877006%23c39
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #38 from Petr Pisar  ---
(In reply to Jordi Sanfeliu from comment #36)
> > Maybe you should try a scratch build in Fedora Koji "koji build --scratch 
> > f39-candidate smf-spf-2.5.1.061e937-1.fc38.src.rpm". This how Fedora 
> > packages are built without the failing COPR appendage.
> 
> $ fedpkg clone smf-spf
> Cloning into 'smf-spf'...
> No such repository
> fatal: Could not read from remote repository.
[...]
> I'm unable to clone the smf-spf repository to start building packages with
> koji.

You don't need any repository for building with koji. The
"smf-spf-2.5.1.061e937-1.fc38.src.rpm" argument in my example is a local RPM
package file.


-- 
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=1877006

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201877006%23c38
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #37 from Petr Pisar  ---
FIX: Missing an Url tag in the spec file pointing to an upstream. Did you mean
?
FIX: Source0 looks like a VCS snapshot. Put a URL you cloned it from into a
comment above Source0 tag
.
Or use a URL of the snapshot if the upstream VCS hosting system supports it.
FIX: Version does not follow a schema for snapshots
.
Consider what would happen if you need to upgrade to a "051e937" snapshot of a
2.5.1-post release. In your current schema the new version would sort lower
than the old version.

Summary verified from README.md. Ok.
Description is Ok.

Licenses found:
GPL-2.0 text: COPYING
MIT: .devcontainer/Dockerfile
BSD-3-like: tests/04-fixed-client-auth-fail.lua
GPL-3.0 text: LICENSE
GPL-2.0-or-later: smf-spf.c

License tag is Ok.

TODO: It looks like the tests come from The Trusted Domain Project which uses
. That
license requires carrying the license text. However, I cannot see the license
text anywhere in the source archive. You should clarify with the upstream an
origin of the tests. If upstream confirms it, the upstream and you need to
supply the missing license text.

FIX: Remove "rm -rf spf2" command from %prep. There is no such directory in the
archive.
TODO: Use "install -m0644" instead of "cp -a" for copying the additional
sources. A mode of the files is undefined. It depends on umask of the host
which builds the package.

FIX: Remove a duplicate "BuildRequires: systemd-rpm-macros".
FIX: Remove "Requires(pre):  shadow-utils". A correct dependency is handled
with "%{?sysusers_requires_compat}" macro.
FIX: Build-requires "coreutils" (smf-spf.spec:52).
FIX: Build-require "make" (smf-spf.spec:49).

FIX: The README.rpm is out-dated. "service", "chkconfig" commands are now
replaced with systemctl. Recommendation to install dependencies like libspf2
and sendmail is pointless. These are handled with RPM run-time dependencies of
this package. If sendmail-cf is required, then smf-spf or sendmail should
run-require it.

FIX: The lua script still fails:
error: lua script failed: [string "add_sysuser"]:16: invalid sysuser type:
#Type
  3<(%lua)
  2<  (%add_sysuser)
Have you tried removing a first line with the comment from the file? At this
step the file is interpreted by Lua script of rpmbuild to generated RPM
Provides and it's possible that the script does not support comments.

$ rpmlint smf-spf.spec ../SRPMS/smf-spf-2.5.1.061e937-1.fc39.src.rpm
../RPMS/x86_64/smf-spf-*
 rpmlint session starts
===
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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: 31, packages: 5

smf-spf.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /run/smfs smfs
smf-spf.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /run/smfs smfs
smf-spf.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /run/smfs 700
smf-spf.x86_64: W: no-url-tag
smf-spf-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-url-tag
smf-spf-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-url-tag
smf-spf.src: W: no-url-tag
smf-spf.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary smf-spf
smf-spf.spec:26: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 26, tab: line 1)
smf-spf.spec:26: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 26, tab: line 1)
smf-spf.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: smf-spf-2.5.1.061e937.tar.gz
smf-spf.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: smf-spf-2.5.1.061e937.tar.gz
smf-spf.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.5.1-1
['2.5.1.061e937-1.fc39', '2.5.1.061e937-1']
smf-spf.x86_64: E: file-parent-ownership-mismatch Path "/run/smfs/smf-spf.sock"
owned by "root" is stored in directory owned by "smfs"
 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 12 warnings, 2 badness;
has taken 0.3 s 
TODO: Replace tabs with spaced in the spec file to achieve uniformity.
FIX: Correct a version in the changelog entry.

$ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/x86_64/smf-spf-2.5.1.061e937-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm 
drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Jul  4 02:00
/etc/mail/smfs
-rw-r--r--1 root root 4731 Jul  4 02:00
/etc/mail/smfs/smf-spf.conf
drwx--2 smfs smfs0 Jul  4 02:00 /run/smfs
-rw-r--r--1 root root0 Jul  4 02:00
/run/smfs/smf-spf.sock
drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Jul  4 02:00
/usr/lib/.build-id
drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Jul  4 02:00
/usr/lib/.build-id/63
lrwxrwxrwx1 root root  

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ppi...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review?
 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED




-- 
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #36 from Jordi Sanfeliu  ---
> Maybe you should try a scratch build in Fedora Koji "koji build --scratch 
> f39-candidate smf-spf-2.5.1.061e937-1.fc38.src.rpm". This how Fedora packages 
> are built without the failing COPR appendage.

$ fedpkg clone smf-spf
Cloning into 'smf-spf'...
No such repository
fatal: Could not read from remote repository.

Please make sure you have the correct access rights
and the repository exists.
Could not execute clone: Failed to execute command.

$ fedpkg request-repo smf-spf 1877006
Could not execute request_repo: The Bugzilla bug is not approved yet


I'm unable to clone the smf-spf repository to start building packages with
koji.
I think someone should approve this package first.


-- 
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=1877006

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201877006%23c36
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #34 from Fedora Review Service 
 ---
Created attachment 1974408
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1974408=edit
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6141267 to 6149097


-- 
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=1877006

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201877006%23c34
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #35 from Fedora Review Service 
 ---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6149097
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-1877006-smf-spf/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06149097-smf-spf/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.


-- 
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=1877006

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201877006%23c35
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #33 from Jordi Sanfeliu  ---
Thanks for your review Petr.

> This is not a failure of the build. The cause is DNF5 which replaced DNF4 in 
> Fedora 39 and DNF5 does not support "dnf repoquery -l" invocation. You can 
> file a bug against fedora-review tool.

Since this affects all builds in Rawhide (F39), by the time I file the bug
someone will already did it.


> RPM build warnings:
>%patchN is deprecated (3 usages found), use %patch N (or %patch -P N)

> Please modernize the spec file to use the new syntax. Alternatively, there is 
> %autosetup macro in place of %setup which unpacks sources and applies all 
> patches in one step 
> .

OK, done.


> This displays F39-only failure. 
> 
>  reads this error:

> error: lua script failed: [string "add_sysuser"]:16: invalid sysuser type: 
> #Type

Yes, I think I know what caused this.
I created the file 'smf-spf.sysusers' like this:

#Type Name   ID  GECOSHome directory  Shell
u smfs   -   "Smart Sendmail Filters" /var/lib/smfs   /sbin/nologin
g smfs

Since I didn't know where to specify the GID of this user, I included the line
with the Type 'g', and that's what Lua is probable failing to parse.
Now I have removed this line with the hope that the dynamic allocation will
create a new group with the same name as the user.

- Please, find the latest .spec and SRPM versions here
Spec URL: https://ftp.fibranet.cat/smf-spf/smf-spf.spec
SRPM URL: https://ftp.fibranet.cat/smf-spf/smf-spf-2.5.1.061e937-1.fc38.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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201877006%23c33
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #32 from Petr Pisar  ---
> Build log:
> https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-1877006-smf-spf/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06141267-smf-spf/builder-live.log.gz

This one shows a failure in a fedora-review tool:

Running FedoraReview tool
Running: fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name smf-spf
--mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg

cmd: ['fedora-review', '--no-colors', '--prebuilt', '--rpm-spec', '--name',
'smf-spf', '--mock-config', '/var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg']
cwd: /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results
rc: 1
stdout: 
stderr: INFO: Processing local files: smf-spf
[...]
Unknown argument "-l" for command "repoquery". Add "--help" for more
information about the arguments.
ERROR: Exception down the road... (logs in
/var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/workspace/workdir-ikgaot8y/.cache/fedora-review.log)

This is not a failure of the build. The cause is DNF5 which replaced DNF4 in
Fedora 39 and DNF5 does not support "dnf repoquery -l" invocation. You can file
a bug against fedora-review tool.

However, the log also prints an rpmbuild warning:

RPM build warnings:
%patchN is deprecated (3 usages found), use %patch N (or %patch -P N)

Please modernize the spec file to use the new syntax. Alternatively, there is
%autosetup macro in place of %setup which unpacks sources and applies all
patches in one step
.

> Copr build:
> https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6141267
> (failed)

This displays F39-only failure.

reads this error:

error: lua script failed: [string "add_sysuser"]:16: invalid sysuser type:
#Type
  3<(%lua)
  2<  (%add_sysuser)
Provides: config(smf-spf) = 2.5.1.061e937-1.fc39 group(smfs) group(smfs) =
ZyBzbWZz smf-spf = 2.5.1.061e937-1.fc39 smf-spf(x86-64) = 2.5.1.061e937-1.fc39
user(smfs) =
dSBzbWZzIC0gIlNtYXJ0IFNlbmRtYWlsIEZpbHRlcnMiIC92YXIvbGliL3NtZnMgL3NiaW4vbm9sb2dpbgAA

Either the new user/group management is broken, or you did a mistake. I haven't
yet debugged it. Though, this Lua error seems to be ignored by rpmbuild and is
not a reason why Copr marked is as failed. The RPM build passed. However, you
should address it.

I guess the reason for a COPR failure is in
:

[2023-07-04 17:00:50,524][  INFO][PID:3980572] Running command 'copr-repo
--batched
/var/lib/copr/public_html/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-1877006-smf-spf/fedora-rawhide-x86_64
--add 06141267-smf-spf --no-appstream-metadata' as PID 4037301
[2023-07-04 17:00:51,411][  INFO][PID:3980572] Finished after 0 seconds with
exit code 1 (copr-repo --batched
/var/lib/copr/public_html/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-1877006-smf-spf/fedora-rawhide-x86_64
--add 06141267-smf-spf --no-appstream-metadata)
stdout:

stderr:
Sub-command failed
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/bin/copr-repo", line 462, in main
main_try_lock(opts, batch)
  File "/usr/bin/copr-repo", line 414, in main_try_lock
main_locked(opts, batch, opts.log)
  File "/usr/bin/copr-repo", line 368, in main_locked
if not run_createrepo(opts):
   
  File "/usr/bin/copr-repo", line 215, in run_createrepo
run_cmd(createrepo_cmd, check=True, logger=opts.log)
  File "/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/copr_backend/helpers.py", line 150,
in run_cmd
raise CommandException(exc_msg)
copr_backend.helpers.CommandException: Command '/usr/bin/createrepo_c
/var/lib/copr/public_html/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-1877006-smf-spf/fedora-rawhide-x86_64
--no-database --ignore-lock --local-sqlite --cachedir /tmp/ --workers 8
--update --skip-stat --recycle-pkglist --pkglist
/var/lib/copr/public_html/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-1877006-smf-spf/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/.copr-createrepo-pkglist'
failed, exit code '2

COPR were unable to create a YUM repository from your freshly built packages.
Again, this not a build failure. This a failure after finishing the build
somewhere in CORP infrastructure. You can  file a bug for COPR where
appropriate.

Maybe you should try a scratch build in Fedora Koji "koji build --scratch
f39-candidate smf-spf-2.5.1.061e937-1.fc38.src.rpm". This how Fedora packages
are built without the failing COPR appendage.


-- 
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=1877006

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201877006%23c32

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #31 from Jordi Sanfeliu  ---
Petr,

Do you know why the build failed?
I'm reading the logs but I cannot see where is the cause.


-- 
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=1877006

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201877006%23c31
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #30 from Fedora Review Service 
 ---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6141267
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-1877006-smf-spf/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06141267-smf-spf/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.


-- 
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201877006%23c30
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #29 from Fedora Review Service 
 ---
Created attachment 1974030
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1974030=edit
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6141151 to 6141267


-- 
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201877006%23c29
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #28 from Jordi Sanfeliu  ---
Oh!, I forgot to update adding the smfs user and group with an sysusers
approach.
Let's see how it goes now.

- Please, find the latest .spec and SRPM versions here
Spec URL: https://ftp.fibranet.cat/smf-spf/smf-spf.spec
SRPM URL: https://ftp.fibranet.cat/smf-spf/smf-spf-2.5.1.061e937-1.fc38.src.rpm


-- 
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=1877006

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201877006%23c28
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #27 from Jordi Sanfeliu  ---
I'm unable to find out where it failed in the logs, I see some Warnings but
they seem harmless.

Can you help me please?
Thanks.


-- 
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=1877006

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201877006%23c27
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #25 from Fedora Review Service 
 ---
Created attachment 1974025
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1974025=edit
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6141088 to 6141151


-- 
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201877006%23c25
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #26 from Fedora Review Service 
 ---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6141151
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-1877006-smf-spf/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06141151-smf-spf/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.


-- 
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=1877006

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201877006%23c26
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #24 from Jordi Sanfeliu  ---
It looks like the build failed because it was unable to download the source
file:

WARNING: Cannot download url:
https://github.com/jcbf/smf-spf/archive/v2.5.1.061e937/smf-spf-2.5.1.061e937.tar.gz

The upstream did not provide a release/package for the latest commit 061e937,
and using a GitHub URL directly
to that commit doesn't work because the directory created does not match with
the tags %{name}-%{version}.

So, I've changed the value of the Source0 tag so it will use the tar.gz file
generated by me manually.

- Please, find the latest .spec and SRPM versions here
Spec URL: https://ftp.fibranet.cat/smf-spf/smf-spf.spec
SRPM URL: https://ftp.fibranet.cat/smf-spf/smf-spf-2.5.1.061e937-1.fc38.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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201877006%23c24
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #22 from Fedora Review Service 
 ---
Created attachment 1974021
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1974021=edit
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5383892 to 6141088


-- 
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201877006%23c22
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #23 from Fedora Review Service 
 ---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6141088
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-1877006-smf-spf/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06141088-smf-spf/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.


-- 
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201877006%23c23
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #21 from Jordi Sanfeliu  ---
Of course I am, and thank you very much for your assistance.

I've changed the string "GPLv2+" by "GPL-2.0-or-later" so I hope this will be
enough.

- Please, find the latest .spec and SRPM versions here
Spec URL: https://ftp.fibranet.cat/smf-spf/smf-spf.spec
SRPM URL: https://ftp.fibranet.cat/smf-spf/smf-spf-2.5.1.061e937-1.fc38.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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201877006%23c21
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #20 from Petr Pisar  ---
If you are still interested in this package, could you please update License
tag to use an SPDX format
 and update
adding the smfs user and group with an sysusers approach
?


-- 
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201877006%23c20
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ppi...@redhat.com



--- Comment #19 from Petr Pisar  ---
This package needs a new review. For requesting a repository the review
approval is valid only for few weeks. When it took long, Mattia removed the
approval on 2022-02-21.


-- 
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #18 from Jordi Sanfeliu  ---
$ fedpkg request-repo smf-spf 1877006
Could not execute request_repo: The Bugzilla bug is not approved yet

Anyone can give a push to this package?


-- 
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=1877006
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #17 from Jakub Kadlčík  ---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5383892
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-1877006-smf-spf/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05383892-smf-spf/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service


-- 
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #16 from Jordi Sanfeliu  ---
(In reply to Jordi Sanfeliu from comment #15)
> (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin  from comment #11)
> > Package approved.


- Please, find the latest .spec and SRPM versions here
Spec URL: https://ftp.fibranet.cat/smf-spf/smf-spf.spec
SRPM URL: https://ftp.fibranet.cat/smf-spf/smf-spf-2.5.1.061e937-1.fc36.src.rpm


-- 
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=1877006
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #15 from Jordi Sanfeliu  ---

(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin  from comment #11)
> Package approved.

Hello,

I'm tired to wait upstream to release the new version, so I thought I'll go
ahead with the latest commit 2.5.1+061e937.

I get the following message after requesting the distgit repository:

$ fedpkg request-repo smf-spf 1877006
Could not execute request_repo: The Bugzilla bug is not approved yet

The people on #fedora-devel at Libera.Chat kindly told me that the review is
only valid for some time (3 months?).
So, can you please, re-approve this package?

Thanks.


-- 
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006

Jordi Sanfeliu  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(jo...@fibranet.ca |
   |t)  |



--- Comment #14 from Jordi Sanfeliu  ---
(In reply to Mattia Verga from comment #13)
> Package never imported, resetting ticket status.
> Jordi, are you still on this?

Yes, I'm just waiting the upstream to release a new version with the COPYING
file modified.
I opened an issue in GitHub to ask for a new version:



No news from the author so far, though.


-- 
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=1877006
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006

Mattia Verga  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|zebo...@gmail.com   |nob...@fedoraproject.org
 Status|POST|NEW
  Flags|fedora-review+  |needinfo?(jo...@fibranet.ca
   ||t)



--- Comment #13 from Mattia Verga  ---
Package never imported, resetting ticket status.
Jordi, are you still on this?


-- 
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=1877006
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #12 from Jordi Sanfeliu  ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin  from comment #11)
> Package approved.

Great news! :-)

Thank you very much for your kind assistance.
Best wishes.


-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006

Robert-André Mauchin   changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|POST
  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #11 from Robert-André Mauchin   ---
Package 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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #10 from Jordi Sanfeliu  ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin  from comment #9)
> You can pass them in the spec:
> 
> %make_build OPTFLAGS="%{optflags}" LDFLAGS="%{build_ldflags} -lmilter
> -lpthread -lspf2"
OK, done. Thanks!.


> 
>  - Remove %clean
OK, done. Thanks.


>  - Notify upstream that they are using an obsolete FSF address:
> 
> smf-spf.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/smf-spf/COPYING
> 
Yes, as I already told you, I'm just waiting a new release from the upstream to
create the final SRPM.


>  - Use %{_tmpfilesdir} instead of %{_prefix}/lib/tmpfiles.d/
OK, done. Thanks.


- Please, find the latest .spec and SRPM versions here
Spec URL: http://ftp.fibranet.cat/smf-spf/smf-spf.spec
SRPM URL: http://ftp.fibranet.cat/smf-spf/smf-spf-2.5.1-1.fc32.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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #9 from Robert-André Mauchin   ---
(In reply to Jordi Sanfeliu from comment #8)
> (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin  from comment #7)
> > No only if you choose to go  with  %make_build OPTFLAGS="%{optflags}" like
> > this:
> > 
> > %make_build OPTFLAGS="%{optflags}"  LDFLAGS="%{build_ldflags}"
> 
> Do I really need to append it?
> If I append the LDFLAGS="%{build_ldflags}" then I get a lot of errors and
> does not build.
> 
> The Makefile of that tool comes with some LDFLAGS set for different systems
> for portability reasons:
> 
> [...]
> 
> # Linux
> LDFLAGS = -lmilter -lpthread -lspf2
> 
> # FreeBSD
> #LDFLAGS = -lmilter -pthread -L/usr/local/lib -lspf2
> 
> # Solaris
> #LDFLAGS = -lmilter -lpthread -lsocket -lnsl -lresolv -lspf2
> 
> [...]
> 
> 

You can pass them in the spec:

%make_build OPTFLAGS="%{optflags}" LDFLAGS="%{build_ldflags} -lmilter -lpthread
-lspf2"

 - Remove %clean

 - Notify upstream that they are using an obsolete FSF address:

smf-spf.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/smf-spf/COPYING


 - Use %{_tmpfilesdir} instead of %{_prefix}/lib/tmpfiles.d/


Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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", "GNU General Public License, Version
 2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal
 address (Mass Ave)]", "Expat License". 81 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/smf-
 spf/review-smf-spf/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 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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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 

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #8 from Jordi Sanfeliu  ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin  from comment #7)
> No only if you choose to go  with  %make_build OPTFLAGS="%{optflags}" like
> this:
> 
> %make_build OPTFLAGS="%{optflags}"  LDFLAGS="%{build_ldflags}"

Do I really need to append it?
If I append the LDFLAGS="%{build_ldflags}" then I get a lot of errors and does
not build.

The Makefile of that tool comes with some LDFLAGS set for different systems for
portability reasons:

[...]

# Linux
LDFLAGS = -lmilter -lpthread -lspf2

# FreeBSD
#LDFLAGS = -lmilter -pthread -L/usr/local/lib -lspf2

# Solaris
#LDFLAGS = -lmilter -lpthread -lsocket -lnsl -lresolv -lspf2

[...]



- Find the latest .spec and SRPM versions here
Spec URL: http://ftp.fibranet.cat/smf-spf/smf-spf.spec
SRPM URL: http://ftp.fibranet.cat/smf-spf/smf-spf-2.5.1-1.fc32.src.rpm



- On the other hand, my PR  was
finally accepted and merged,
so now it has the correct COPYING file.

I'm just waiting a new release of the upstream to create the final SRPM.


-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin   ---
(In reply to Jordi Sanfeliu from comment #6)
> (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin  from comment #5)
> > also you need to define LDFLAGS similarly with %build_ldflags
> You mean I need to add the following line?
> %set_build_ldflags LDFLAGS="%{ldflags}"
> 
No only if you choose to go  with  %make_build OPTFLAGS="%{optflags}" like
this:

%make_build OPTFLAGS="%{optflags}"  LDFLAGS="%{build_ldflags}"


-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #6 from Jordi Sanfeliu  ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin  from comment #5)
>  - NOt needed:
> 
> BuildRequires:systemd-units
> 
> Requires(post):   systemd-units
> Requires(preun): systemd-units
> Requires(postun): systemd-units
> 
> Use:
> 
> BuildRequires:systemd-rpm-macros
OK, done. Thanks.



>  - Not needed, this is already taken care of by Requires(pre):
> shadow-utils 
> :
> 
> Requires(pre):/usr/bin/getent, /usr/sbin/groupadd, /usr/sbin/useradd,
> /usr/sbin/usermod
> 
OK, done. Thanks.



> - %set_build_flags OPTFLAGS="%{optflags}"
> %make_build
> 
>  %set_build_flags define otpflags so this is meaningless.
> 
> if you want to keep optflags like this just switch back to 
> 
>   %make_build OPTFLAGS="%{optflags}"
OK, done. Thanks.



> also you need to define LDFLAGS similarly with %build_ldflags
You mean I need to add the following line?
%set_build_ldflags LDFLAGS="%{ldflags}"



> 
>  - Notify upstream about their obsoletet FSF address (don't patch it)
> 
> 
> smf-spf.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/smf-spf/COPYING
> 
Filed a PR: 
Waiting an answer from upstream.


-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin   ---
 - NOt needed:

BuildRequires:  systemd-units

Requires(post): systemd-units
Requires(preun): systemd-units
Requires(postun): systemd-units

Use:

BuildRequires:  systemd-rpm-macros

 - Not needed, this is already taken care of by Requires(pre):  shadow-utils  :

Requires(pre):  /usr/bin/getent, /usr/sbin/groupadd, /usr/sbin/useradd,
/usr/sbin/usermod


- %set_build_flags OPTFLAGS="%{optflags}"
%make_build

 %set_build_flags define otpflags so this is meaningless.

if you want to keep optflags like this just switch back to 

  %make_build OPTFLAGS="%{optflags}" 

also you need to define LDFLAGS similarly with %build_ldflags

 - Notify upstream about their obsoletet FSF address (don't patch it)


smf-spf.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/smf-spf/COPYING


Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



= MUST items =

Generic:
[ ]: 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
 upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No
 copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0". 21 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/golang-nanomsg-mangos-3/review-golang-
 nanomsg-mangos-3/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.
[ ]: 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 184320 bytes in 64 files.
[ ]: 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 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 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

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[ ]: 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 golang-
 nanomsg-mangos-3-devel
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: 

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #4 from Jordi Sanfeliu  ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin  from comment #3)

> Source0:   
> https://github.com/jcbf/smf-spf/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
> 
OK, done.



> See your patch:
> 
> diff -ru smf-spf-2.4.3.orig/Makefile smf-spf-2.4.3/Makefile
> --- smf-spf-2.4.3.orig/Makefile   2020-03-26 00:45:26.0 +0100
> +++ smf-spf-2.4.3/Makefile2020-06-15 11:03:57.33900 +0200
> @@ -7,10 +7,10 @@
>  CONFDIR = /etc/mail/smfs
>  USER = smfs
>  GROUP = smfs
> -CFLAGS = -O2 -D_REENTRANT -fomit-frame-pointer -I/usr/local/include 
> +CFLAGS = -pthread $(OPTFLAGS)
>  
>  # Linux
> -LDFLAGS = -lmilter -lpthread -L/usr/lib/libmilter -L/usr/local/lib -lspf2
> +LDFLAGS = -lmilter -lpthread -lspf2
>  
>  # FreeBSD
>  #LDFLAGS = -lmilter -pthread -L/usr/local/lib -lspf2
> @@ -25,7 +25,6 @@
>  
>  smf-spf: smf-spf.o
>   $(CC) -o smf-spf smf-spf.o $(LDFLAGS)
> - strip smf-spf
>  
>  smf-spf.o: smf-spf.c
>   $(CC) $(CFLAGS) -c smf-spf.c
> 
> 
> I don't think it is judicious to use $(OPTFLAGS) here, instead you can use
> the macro %set_build_flags to define CFLAGS and LDFLAGS at the same time to
> use with make afterwards:
> 
> %set_build_flags
> %make_build
> 
> >> - Explicitly BR gcc
> >I don't understand this.
I've finally opted to keep the patch as is and continue including the OPTFLAGS.
I've just changed
the build lines as you suggested and it builds well.



> For C and C++ programs, you must explicitly BuildRequires the compiler
> 
> BuildRequires:  gcc
OK, done



Refreshed files:
Spec URL: http://ftp.fibranet.cat/smf-spf/smf-spf.spec
SRPM URL: http://ftp.fibranet.cat/smf-spf/smf-spf-2.4.3-1.fc32.src.rpm

Thank you very much.


-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006

Robert-André Mauchin   changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin   ---
>  - Source must either be an url or you need to add a comment explaining how
> the archive got generated:
> 
> Source0:  %{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
Hmm ... if I put the line:
Source0:https://github.com/jcbf/smf-spf/archive/v2.4.3.tar.gz

then I get the following message:

# rpmbuild -ba smf-spf.spec 
error: Bad source: /root/rpmbuild/SOURCES/v2.4.3.tar.gz: No such file or
directory

How/where should I include the URL?

First

Source0:   
https://github.com/jcbf/smf-spf/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz


Then you should d/l with: spectool -g smf-spf.spec

It will d/l the source next to your SPEC.

Secondly, I never use rpmbuild anymore. I always use a chroot: 

fedpkg --release f34 mockbuild --mock-config fedora-rawhide-x86_64 

This avoid mixing the deps with your own system, and maybe miss deps.

Then you can check your build on Koji afterwards:

fedpkg  --release f34 scratch-build --srpm --fail-fast


>>  - make %{?_smp_mflags} OPTFLAGS="%{optflags}" 
>> 
>> → 
>> 
>> %set_build_flags
>Sorry, I don't understand this.


See your patch:

diff -ru smf-spf-2.4.3.orig/Makefile smf-spf-2.4.3/Makefile
--- smf-spf-2.4.3.orig/Makefile 2020-03-26 00:45:26.0 +0100
+++ smf-spf-2.4.3/Makefile  2020-06-15 11:03:57.33900 +0200
@@ -7,10 +7,10 @@
 CONFDIR = /etc/mail/smfs
 USER = smfs
 GROUP = smfs
-CFLAGS = -O2 -D_REENTRANT -fomit-frame-pointer -I/usr/local/include 
+CFLAGS = -pthread $(OPTFLAGS)

 # Linux
-LDFLAGS = -lmilter -lpthread -L/usr/lib/libmilter -L/usr/local/lib -lspf2
+LDFLAGS = -lmilter -lpthread -lspf2

 # FreeBSD
 #LDFLAGS = -lmilter -pthread -L/usr/local/lib -lspf2
@@ -25,7 +25,6 @@

 smf-spf: smf-spf.o
$(CC) -o smf-spf smf-spf.o $(LDFLAGS)
-   strip smf-spf

 smf-spf.o: smf-spf.c
$(CC) $(CFLAGS) -c smf-spf.c


I don't think it is judicious to use $(OPTFLAGS) here, instead you can use the
macro %set_build_flags to define CFLAGS and LDFLAGS at the same time to use
with make afterwards:

%set_build_flags
%make_build

>> - Explicitly BR gcc
>I don't understand this.

For C and C++ programs, you must explicitly BuildRequires the compiler

BuildRequires:  gcc


-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #2 from Jordi Sanfeliu  ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin  from comment #1)
>  All these things have been obsolete for years:
> 
> # Do a systemd-based build from F-15; otherwise, a sysvinit-based build
> %global use_systemd %([ "(" 0%{?fedora} -gt 14 ")" -o "(" 0%{?rhel} -gt 6
> ")" ] && echo 1 || echo 0)
> 
> # This macro only defined by default around Fedora 10 time
> %{!?_initddir:%global _initddir %{_initrddir}}
> 
> # With systemd, the run directory is /run; otherwise it's /var/run
> %if %{use_systemd}
> %global rundir /run
> %else
> %global rundir %{_localstatedir}/run
> %endif
> 
> 
> F15? F10? Older than my nephew. Don't include them.
LOL, sorry. Removed.



>  - Source must either be an url or you need to add a comment explaining how
> the archive got generated:
> 
> Source0:  %{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
Hmm ... if I put the line:
Source0:https://github.com/jcbf/smf-spf/archive/v2.4.3.tar.gz

then I get the following message:

# rpmbuild -ba smf-spf.spec 
error: Bad source: /root/rpmbuild/SOURCES/v2.4.3.tar.gz: No such file or
directory

How/where should I include the URL?



>  - Not needed:
> 
> BuildRoot:%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(id -nu)
> 
> Group:System Environment/Daemons
> 
> rm -rf %{buildroot}
> 
> %clean
> rm -rf %{buildroot}
> 
> 
> %defattr(-,root,root,-)
OK, removed.



>  - Use the System scriptlets, see:
OK, done.



>  - COPYING must be installed with %license, not %doc:
OK, done.



>  - make %{?_smp_mflags} OPTFLAGS="%{optflags}" 
> 
> → 
> 
> %set_build_flags
Sorry, I don't understand this.



>  - Add the comment regarding the patches above each PatchX line
OK, done.



>  - Requires(pre): /usr/bin/getent, /usr/sbin/groupadd, /usr/sbin/useradd,
> /usr/sbin/usermod → Requires(pre): shadow-utils
OK, done.



>  - One BR per line would be nice:
> 
> BuildRequires:libspf2-devel >= 1.2.5
> BuildRequires:sendmail-milter-devel >= 8.12
OK, done.



> %make_build
> 
>  - Explicitly BR gcc
I don't understand this.


Refreshed files:
Spec URL: http://ftp.fibranet.cat/smf-spf/smf-spf.spec
SRPM URL: http://ftp.fibranet.cat/smf-spf/smf-spf-2.4.3-1.el8.src.rpm

Thank you very much.


-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006

Robert-André Mauchin   changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin   ---
 All these things have been obsolete for years:

# Do a systemd-based build from F-15; otherwise, a sysvinit-based build
%global use_systemd %([ "(" 0%{?fedora} -gt 14 ")" -o "(" 0%{?rhel} -gt 6 ")" ]
&& echo 1 || echo 0)

# This macro only defined by default around Fedora 10 time
%{!?_initddir:%global _initddir %{_initrddir}}

# With systemd, the run directory is /run; otherwise it's /var/run
%if %{use_systemd}
%global rundir /run
%else
%global rundir %{_localstatedir}/run
%endif


F15? F10? Older than my nephew. Don't include them.

 - Source must either be an url or you need to add a comment explaining how the
archive got generated:

Source0:%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

 - Not needed:

BuildRoot:  %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(id -nu)

Group:  System Environment/Daemons

rm -rf %{buildroot}

%clean
rm -rf %{buildroot}


%defattr(-,root,root,-)


 - Use the System scriptlets, see:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_systemd

BuildRequires:  systemd-units
Requires(post): systemd-units
Requires(preun): systemd-units
Requires(postun): systemd-units

[…]

%post
if [ $1 -eq 1 ]; then
# Initial installation 
%if %{use_systemd}
/bin/systemctl daemon-reload &>/dev/null || :
%else
/sbin/chkconfig --add smf-spf || :
%endif
fi

%preun
if [ $1 -eq 0 ]; then
# Package removal, not upgrade
%if %{use_systemd}
/bin/systemctl --no-reload disable smf-spf.service &>/dev/null || :
/bin/systemctl stop smf-spf.service &>/dev/null || :
%else
%{_initddir}/smf-spf stop &>/dev/null || :
/sbin/chkconfig --del smf-spf || :
%endif
fi

%postun
%if %{use_systemd}
/bin/systemctl daemon-reload &>/dev/null || :
%endif
if [ $1 -ge 1 ]; then
# Package upgrade, not uninstall
%if %{use_systemd}
/bin/systemctl try-restart smf-spf.service &>/dev/null || :
%else
%{_initddir}/smf-spf condrestart &>/dev/null || :
%endif
fi

→

BuildRequires:  systemd-rpm-macros

[…]

%post
%systemd_post smf-spf.service

%preun
%systemd_preun smf-spf.service

%postun
%systemd_postun_with_restart smf-spf.service


 - COPYING must be installed with %license, not %doc:

%doc ChangeLog readme README.rpm
license COPYING

 - make %{?_smp_mflags} OPTFLAGS="%{optflags}" 

→ 

%set_build_flags

 - Add the comment regarding the patches above each PatchX line

 - Requires(pre):   /usr/bin/getent, /usr/sbin/groupadd, /usr/sbin/useradd,
/usr/sbin/usermod → Requires(pre): shadow-utils

 - One BR per line would be nice:

BuildRequires:  libspf2-devel >= 1.2.5
BuildRequires:  sendmail-milter-devel >= 8.12

%make_build

 - Explicitly BR gcc


-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006

Jordi Sanfeliu  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value




-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org